Talk:Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis

Lancet editorial misrepresented

This edit summary is bordering on a personal attack, but more importantly, the content of the Lancet editorial is cherry-picked and misrepresented. Perhaps that is (only one) part of the very good reason the entire lot of edits was reverted (I saw other problems as well). I don't want to get into the middle of an edit war, but the gross misrepresentation of the Lancet's entire point needs correction to remove the considerable one-sided bias introduced. WMrapids, after you were reverted once, you should gain consensus before reinstating ... even more so in this case where the content added is so biased. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The Lancet editors (15 June 2019). "Venezuela: food and medicines used as weapons" (PDF). Lancet. 393 (10189): 2360. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31357-1. PMID 31204665. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Nothing misrepresented about what was said, especially since it is quoted. I ask again, must I always ask for permission for edits? This is bordering WP:OWN... WMrapids (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

That was answered two days ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I can help resolve the disagreement and be the one to add a third perspective on this issue. The source is good. Editorials are often disfavored, but this is an attributed editorial stance of a major RS. The Lancet is independently notable from an encyclopedic standpoint. There are various ways to express the stance of the article. The quotation is acceptable and doesn't need to be removed. The quotation picks up most of the major points. What's missing is that The Lancet called for the involvement of non-governmental entities to manage and distribute aid, and for the Venezuelan government to allow them to do so. That addition or a similarly phrased one ought to alleviate any concern about The Lancet's position being fairly represented. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no doubt the Lancet should be represented among the various opinions in that section (although Nbauman's reasoning at #The Lancet about it being singled out at MEDRS isn't relevant to non-biomedical information and opinion), so while I don't argue the Lancet should not have due weight along with every other reliable opinion offered, they get no more or less weight than anyone else (who may be experts on the specific matter, which the Lancet is not -- it's not their area of expertise, it's their opinion, like all the rest, but some of the other opinions are more informed by being within their area of expertise).

What is missed in the biased excerpt is that they are calling out Maduro for using food and medicine as a weapon and not allowing NGOs in (something that is well supported by a multitude or reliable sources, so not UNDUE), and encouraging him to do so, while also stating that the US is using sanctions for political purposes, which they claim violates human rights and also claim is affecting food and medicine (unsure if the Lancet is in a position to make this statement, and plenty disagree, but won't argue that point -- I'm OK with their attributed opinion). This edit managed to get none of the relevant points, while giving an unbalanced representation of the entire point of the Lancet editorial, by glossing over the Maduro issue and highlighting one quote of the sanction issue (and yes, cherry-picked quotes can still misrepresent sources by choice of what is included and what is omitted).

Further, the source can be correctly represented without quoting, but more importantly, all of it can be worked more seamlessly into the thematic reorganization of that whole section that we've been talking about for days, that would also resolve the Guaido/Hausmann double standard. Discussing rather than edit warring is the way to go; we were doing that, when these edits introduced new problems while not solving the original problem. There are more problems than this one with the recent edits, and slow and steady wins the race. Thanks for the help, JArthur1984, but please give me a moment to catch up and summarize. That entire section needs to be better worked, and we were in the midst of discussing and working collaboratively on that when this edit war occurred. And my doorbell just rang, so give me an hour ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Edits of 20 to 21 October

1. On 20 October – while there was ongoing collaborative talk page discussion about how to resolve the issues in this messy section and more – in this series of edits on 20 October, multiple (old and new) issues were introduced (blanking of cited content, a double standard on Hausmann v. Weisbrot, cherrypicking of source statements, and more).
2. At 01:58, October 21, 2023 NoonIcarus reverted to the stable version.
3. At 04:40, October 21, 2023 and onward, in this series of edits, the problems were reintroduced, without talk page discussion.

I plan to revert most with selective restorals of the good edits (which is VERY time consuming way to edit, and engaging talk for consensus building would be more expedient for all), for the following problems (at least), so that we can then discuss how to move forward from here rather than edit war. The problems in this series of edits are:

1. 04:40 removes the cited word claimed. Misapplies the WP:LABEL guideline and removes a footnote about Weisbrot's support of chavismo, while leaving an essentially identical statement about Hausmann in the article (note b), and defending that on talk (it is unclear why Hausmann being a Guaido advisor is advocated to be included in the article, but Weisbrot's well documented support of chavismo is removed). Not only should it be possible to rewrite this whole section in a more general way, without he-said/she-said and overquoting, but however these two are handled (short of sources making the connection) should be parallel.
2. 04:41 removes something labeled "opposition rhetoric" from the lead (see point 3), but leaves a whole ton of quotes cherrypicked according to (what criteria?); the whole mess can be better summarized if we re-work the lead after we fix the mess in the section it is based on. (There is also a faulty impression in the lead that the Trump administration began with industry sanctions, when in fact they first applied more limited individual sanctions, hoping those would work first).
3. 04:42 how is it "not relevant" that the Maduro administration claimed it was being strangled by sanctions, yet was still selling oil to Cuba and giving money to allies? This is neither "opposition rhetoric" nor UNDUE (samples only, there are literally gobs of sources on this):[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

   04:56, restored, yet still removed from lead.

4. 04:44 see point 1 re double standard on Weisbrot/Hausmann
5. 04:46 appears to be a good edit that should be preserved.
6. 04:47 see #Lancet editorial misrepresented
7. 04:48 besides the edit summary problem, "civil society" is defined as organizations not associated with government"; what is the problem here, and why was the Barraez source moved to content that it doesn't source rather than a rewrite to source what it does say?
8. 04:52 not problematic per se, but introduces more of the selective overquoting we seek to reduce and consolidate more generally.
9. 04:58 why? Crystall ball? We don't know what is going to happen next year, we can change it next year if needed, and the way it is written now, we have redundancy in 2023.

The points are numbered for discussion; please do. I believe we all acknowledge there are issues to be corrected, but edit warring is not the fastest way to progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

1. It was reworded per MOS:CLAIM. Their political beliefs are irrelevant and it was an attempt to synthesize information to lead the reader. Period. Also, the comparison to Hausmann is a false equivalency, one economist is described as being politically sympathetic while another economist is literally part of the government.
2. Yes, it was unnecessary rhetoric from an opposition official who simply said that "nothing wrong with these sanctions". I have no problem with rearranging the wording so that the scale of sanctions is interpreted correctly. There was already information from WP, so a more recent article from AJ was added.
3. First, the sources weren’t great for such claims. Second, there’s no context on financial obligations, etc. that may have existed, only an attempt to place a "gotcha" into the article. As for the intro, it is undue.
4. Again, false equivalency.
5. Cool
6. Looks like in the discussion above, we can add the call for NGO involvement. No problem.
7. "Civil society" suggests a broad outrage amongst society and not just a scope of outrage amongst activists and NGOs, which is more accurate according to the sources.
8. No problem with including the analysis from a notable Venezuelan economist (they are already mentioned as the last independent person to see Venezuela’s gold reserves).
9. Not clear what you’re attempting to say? Removed the date and made it a more prominent section since it is notable that some sanctions are being lifted. Not much more to say about that edit.

WMrapids (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would like to follow up on this, since I wanted to explain the reason I disputed the edits but have not had time:

• A subsequent UN report in 2021 would state that sanctions had worsened Venezuela's economic crisis ([6]): No, it did not. The report is not from the United Nations, but rather a special rapporteur, Alena Douhan, whose position is already covered in the Reactions section. A report from a rapporteur is not the same as the United Nations, which is a common mistake that has been discussed a lot in topics from Israel to Syria. We only need to remember Alfred de Zayas to see how unreliable and biased they can be.
• Article did not say anything about "civil society" ([7]): It did, it specifically mentions the position of non-governmental organizations.
• Opposition politician opinion. Not relevant. ([8]): David Smolansky is currently the Commissioner for Venezuelan Migrants and Refugees for the Organization of American States. If there's anyone that can speak about the refugee crisis and its reasons, it is him.

I could go on, but most problems essentially boil down to the same issues: WP:SYNTH and removal of relevant content. From what I see, the stable version has been restored, so I have removed the POV tag. Changes can continue to be implemented as at any rate the article needs updating. Cheers, --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

If we could all recognize the Reactions section, lead, and any other disputed areas need work (which includes reducing overquoting), and get that work done via proposals (eg #Lancet proposal, #Footnote proposal) it will be preferable to edit warring; once an edit has been reverted, pls discuss and gain consensus on talk.

WMrapids, 1. The word claim was cited; 2 and 3. The sources in the article weren't great, but we know this is easily sourced information; I've provided just a small sampling. I don't believe it's UNDUE content, but do believe we should beef up the sourcing. 4. Disagree; Weisbrot's long-standing involvement with chavismo is on the par with Hausmann's role as an economic advisor. See proposal below; identify both or remove both. But still think if we write this section better and more generally, we can avoid having to single out anyone in terms of their possible bias. 5. NA. 6. See proposal below. 7. Per NoonIcarus response, but I reworded that anyway. 8. NA. 9. I'm saying that by removing the 2023 from the section heading and adding it to the body, we ended up with redundant sentences, and leaving it for now in the section heading will work, as we don't know what the future will bring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Continued at #Reactions section rewrite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Lancet proposal

• The Lancet editors (15 June 2019). "Venezuela: food and medicines used as weapons" (PDF). Lancet. 393 (10189): 2360. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31357-1. PMID 31204665.

Starting with JArthur1984's suggestion above, how about:

• The Lancet journal editors noted in 2019 that Maduro had used food as a political weapon and resisted humanitarian aid, and that the U.S. had reacted with sanctions that they said resulted in "collateral" food and medicine shortages. They called for the involvement of non-governmental entities to provide distribution of food and medicine, and for the Venezuelan government to allow them to do so, and stated that the UN Human Rights Council considers economic sanctions a violation of human rights.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

This looks good. In second line, I suggest changing "they" to "the editors". I don't perceive the benefit to collateral in quotes however, as this is already couched in terms of what The Lancet was saying. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Both work for me; would appreciate more feedback before installing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Continued at #Reactions section rewrite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Continued at #The Lancet 2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Footnote proposal

We have these footnotes; both Weisbrot and Hausmann. Remove both or keep both ?

• I'm leaning towards remove both (as we rewrite the miserable Reactions section to consolidate information thematically and avoid overquoting, the issues in the text requiring attribution will hopefully subside anyway). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I think revisit after the substance of the section is re-written. Weisbrot footnote seems too much SYNTH and he is already described in body as left-leaning. The body of the text should specify Hausmann's role as a Guaidó appointee. Your suggestion of the more holistic re-write and then see where we stand on issues requiring attribution is sensible. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I hope to put up a rewrite proposal for the whole thing within a few days; for now, I am entertained dealing with my husband's iPad being stolen on our roadtrip. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Weisbrot information is SYNTH of descriptions while Hausmann is directly involved with Guaidó. WMrapids (talk) 06:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Hausmann was an advisor to Guaido; Weisbrot was an advisor for (advancing) chavismo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Advising for a film is different from advising a government directly. Another false equivalency... WMrapids (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Continued at #Reactions section rewrite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead proposal: missing later than 2019 reactions to effects

The lead now has no mention of later reports on the effects of the sanctions, but I suggest holding off on figuring out that wording 'til we have cleaned up the Reactions section. (That is, pls don't think I am ignoring that omission because I passed it over-- just believe it doesn't make sense to clean up a lead when a body is still evolving --- unless someone can suggest a brief, neutral sentence we might agree on regardless of the work needed in Reactions.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Update needed

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

@SandyGeorgia: I have been the editor that placed the tags and one a fervent believer that updates are needed. The main reason why I added it is due to the list of sanctioned people, because this track has stopped some years ago. I think this should be easily verifiable with OFAC's Sanctions List Search Tool. If I have some time, I'll give a hand with this. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thx, NoonIcarus, so I was backwards in thinking it was more industries that needed updating, and moved the tag to the wrong place ? See also my question at #Missing info: another example of why it's better to keep the list with the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Found this list to review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

To add - U.S.

1. And I see that none of 2020 was added to the charts, so will also work on those (they are in the article, but not the chart). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

   Added Parra & co. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

2. US Treas, 2021-01-19: Ellsworth, Brian; Parraga, Marianna (19 January 2021). "U.S. blacklists oil traders, tankers for undermining Venezuela sanctions". Reuters. Retrieved 28 October 2023. "Treasury Targets Venezuelan Oil Sector Sanctions Evasion Network" (Press release). U.S. Department of the Treasury. 19 March 2021. Retrieved 28 October 2023. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

   Done, [9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

3. US Treas, 2020-06-18 Psaledakis, Daphne; Parraga, Marianna (18 June 2020). "U.S. slaps sanctions on Mexican firms, individuals linked to Venezuelan oil trade". Reuters. Retrieved 28 October 2023. "Treasury Targets Sanctions Evasion Network Supporting Corrupt Venezuelan Actors" (Press release). U.S. Departmen of the Treasury. 18 June 2020. Retrieved 28 October 2023.

   Done, [10] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

4. US Treas, 2020-03-12 Mohsin, Saleha; Millard, Peter (12 March 2020). "U.S. Sanctions Second Rosneft Subsidiary for Backing Maduro". Bloomberg. Retrieved 28 October 2023. "The United States Increases Pressure on Illegitimate Former Maduro Regime with Designation of TNK Trading International S.A." (Press release). U.S. Department of the Treasury. 12 March 2020. Retrieved 28 October 2023.

   Done, [11]

5. US Treas, 2019-11-26 "U.S. blacklists Cuban firm tied to Venezuela sanctions evasion". Reuters. 26 November 2019. Retrieved 28 October 2023. "Treasury Takes Further Action Regarding Designated Cubametales for Attempting to Circumvent Sanctions" (Press release). U.S. Department of the Treasury. 26 November 2019. Retrieved 28 October 2023.

   Done, [12] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

6. US Treas, 2019-09-24 "U.S. sanctions target Venezuelan oil moving to Cuba". Reuters. 24 September 2019. Retrieved 28 October 2023. "Treasury Further Targets Entities and Vessels Moving Venezuelan Oil to Cuba" (Press release). U.S. Department of the Treasury. 24 September 2019. Retrieved 28 October 2023.

   Done, [13] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

7. US Treas, 2019-07-03 "US Hits Cuba With Sanctions in New Move Against Venezuela's Maduro". Voice of America. 3 July 2019. Retrieved 28 October 2023. "Treasury Targets Cuban Support for the Illegitimate Venezuelan Regime" (Press release). U.S. Department of the Treasury. 3 July 2019. Retrieved 28 October 2023.

   Done, [14] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Evasion

1. Another evasion to add, Swiss: [15] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

   Done, [16] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Swiss

1. Found more Swiss from 2020, to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

   Done, [17] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Oopsie ... looked at es.wiki and found 2020-07-23 [18] (Biden White House is not updating the sanctions page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Done, [19] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

And EU 2021-2-22 [20] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Done, [21] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

And 2020-12-18 [22] [23]; the White House list went to heck under Biden. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Done, [24] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Sandy, thank you so much for all the recent improvements, I know it must have surely taken some time. I will take a look too later, but by then I believe everything should be good enough to removed the tag. Many thanks once again. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Colombia travel bans

Although Colombia during the Petro administration has made statements about relaxing sanctions, I don't have any insight on whether any concrete steps to do so have been taken. JArthur1984 (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Like JArthur1984, I don't recall a relaxation or withdrawal of sanctions, but Maduro did visit Bogotá in April 2023 for an international summit ([25]). --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Oddly, Colombia seems to have prohibited entry for everyone but Maduro. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. I took a look at the table, where Maduro was originally included, but looking at the reference that seems to be correct. Other officials might have visited as well, but I would have to check up on that too. Cheers, --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

NoonIcarus I believe it was I who misread the chart: see this 2019 source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Then this in July 2022. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

And this in September 2022; is there an official govt announcement, and did it apply to everyone? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your dilligence, Sandy. I am not aware of this announcement being made official, but I will let know if I find anything. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Because I can't find any official announcement, for now, I've only footnoted it in the table. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that, it's best to play it safe and avoid original research. Thank you kindly. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Sanctions and regime change efforts

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

Best I can tell, you already have, but this prose is an awkward way to introduce it, as it reads as forced, trying to work in the words regime change. During the administration of President Donald Trump, sanctions were increased towards Venezuela in regime change efforts to oust Maduro. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Would it be better to say "in regime change efforts against Maduro"? WMrapids (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I suggest if that it's so awkward to work the words in, there may be an underlying reason to consider, and to think about whether it's even necessary. It is already abundantly clear throughout that the sanctions aim to remove the Maduro regime and restore democracy; regime change is not the word most sources use, and finding three that do does not necessarily reflect a preponderance of sources nor is it words we must use in this article (that article - regime change - is a separate matter). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

This is an argument on semantics. Removing the Maduro regime is regime change even if the argument of recognition arises. WMrapids (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

And your edits introduced tortured prose, while also singling out individual commentators, which is something we had previously eliminated. When sources are saying the same thing, we've combined them to one statement to avoid a series of he said-she said and overquoting. I've reduced that again. You introduced text twice now that has been twice corrected and removed by others; please gain consensus on talk for further edits to this content, which is torturing the prose in the interest of introducing wording used by select, but not most, sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Corrected per above notes; please gain consensus if you intend to continuing introducing content (also at #UNDUE content in the lead, which is not a summary of the sources or the article) that has been twice removed by others. The way to write Wikipedia articles is to first read all secondary reliable sources and summarize what they say-- not to first decide what we want to say and then google until we find a source that agrees. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for making baseless assumptions. Maybe you could be correct next time and notice that this information is something that was found after reviewing multiple secondary sources too? Omitting what you don't agree with ("Oh, well I read all of the sources and you're wrong") is inappropriate. Again, there are numerous sources saying that the US specifically made regime change efforts through the sanctions, including generally reliable sources.

So besides your own personal opinion on "what the sources say", why should it not be included? WMrapids (talk) 03:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I merged the new sources with like sources, removed repetition, eliminated unnecessary attribution of opinions shared by many sources, reduced some overquoting in citations, moved some obviously-not-lead material out of the lead, and corrected some prose that was tortured by its attempt to introduce the words regime change. The diffs and discussion are above; what is the content you claim I omitted ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The part where I wrote "the US specifically made regime change efforts through the sanctions". Any reason why this is continually removed? WMrapids (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

This is the diff of my changes (I already posted it above). Your push to incorporate the specific words regime change into the article left tortured prose; I left your link to regime change, with the words efforts to remove Maduro, as that a) preserves your desire to work in a link to regime change, while b) using the term most commonly used by sources (which is not regime change), and c) corrects the tortured prose from the awkwardness of the attempt to force the words regime change into an article which is obviously removing Maduro & Co from power. Most sources don't use the words regime change; you went out and found some that did. That's fine, but that doesn't mean we need to end up with tortured prose just so we can highlight one Wikilink, nor should we be framing the whole construct in the way a couple of sources do, when most sources don't use that specific term at all. I preserved the link (not because I think we must, but as a courtesy), and corrected the prose to reflect the preponderance of sources. If you want to highlith the words regime change more prominently, you know how to do that; convince everyone here that's what the preponderance of sources do (not just a few).

Separately from that, your whole series of edits from two days ago had introduced tortured prose, repetitive content that undid the rewrite we worked on collaboratively here, and added UNDUE content into the lead which didn't summarize the content at all. If you edit like that, you should not be surprised to find other editors unable to tease out any good from the mostly bad, and simply removing the whole thing and asking you to gain consensus for your edits. That I'm willing to do the extra work to merge in the good doesn't mean most editors will, after a string of edits that aren't an improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Re "baseless assumptions", double messages are confusing. You were previously opposed to the word regime; now you want it used in this case, because a few sources do, when most don't? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The word "regime" initially meant a government in general, yet it has negative connotations today. However, "regime change" still harkens back to the original meaning (a forced or coerced change in government) and is not related to the more recent use of the word "regime". WMrapids (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The Lancet 2

see Talk:Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis/Archive 2#The Lancet

I am copying this discussion from the archive, because I just saw the question for me in my messages:

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

@Nbauman: Is this the Lancet article you are mentioning that I placed in this edit? WMrapids (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The content in the Lancet editorial is not biomedical, so MEDRS isn't relevant here. The Lancet editors are going outside their normal medical realm to criticize the Maduro regime for using food and medicine as a weapon; they are certainly entitled to do that, but MEDRS doesn't apply to this content as the information is sociopolitical, not biomedical.

Nonetheless, see #Lancet editorial misrepresented; the edit misrepresents the source and whitewashes what the editors said about Maduro. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

PS: "not to first decide what we want to say and then google until we find a source that agrees."

Strongly agree. Nbauman (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

First, I want to reply to @SandyGeorgia's comment that MEDRS doesn't apply, and that "The Lancet editors are going outside their normal medical realm". This is a common misconception, which was extensively addressed when the National Rifle Association told doctors to "stick to their wheelhouse". Doctors who treated automobile injuries realized that the underlying problem was automotive design, politics and legislation (See Unsafe at Any Speed). I believe (and most medical journals believe) that anything that requires medical expertise, such as mass starvation or nuclear war, is within the normal medical realm, and the effects of sanctions falls under the medical specialty of public health. The Lancet in particular makes a point of reporting on sociopolitical matters. See The Lancet generally and [26] "Political controversies" specifically. The editorials are peer-reviewed, they regularly publish opposing opinions in letters and editorials, they retract mistakes, they were listed as a core medical journal in the Brandon-Hill list, and so it's more reliable than most of the other sources used in the entry. I used to read The Lancet every week for years, and use it as a source for my own work. (And to anticipate the common criticisms, The Lancet, like most medical journals, doesn't claim to be publishing "the truth"; they merely claim to do the best job they can of applying standard methods of fact-checking and scientific publishing to each manuscript.)

Second, as for #Lancet editorial misrepresented, I think it summarizes the editorial reasonably well, but I don't think anyone could summarize a 350-word article in a 50-word snippit. If I were writing it, I would quote the nut paragraph from The Lancet. I think a coherent essay is more useful than a paragraph of snippits (although the snippits are a useful bibliography). But I'm not writing it.

(I do think it should be rewritten in compliance with WP:SAID, however.)

Third, as for the specific Lancet article I'm referring to, I was actually referring to the coverage in general. Search PubMed for ("lancet"[Journal]) AND ("venezuela"[Title]) (try https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%28%22lancet%22%5BJournal%5D%29+AND+%28%22venezuela%22%5BTitle%5D%29&sort=pubdate) for about 2 dozen articles, most of which are relevant to the sanctions. Note that they have a wide range of viewpoints, including something for everyone to disagree with. You can also search for ("bmj"[Journal]) AND (venezuela[Title]). I haven't tried NEJM or JAMA. Nbauman (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nbauman: Really want to thank you for revisiting this controversial discussion to provide thorough feedback. Regarding your third note, many of those articles are tagged as "Comment" or "Correspondence", so they may be more opinion-based. Are there any articles in particular that stand out to you? WMrapids (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Nbauman is wrong that the Lancet Editorial is peer reviewed. The Lancet say "Editorials are the voice of each Lancet journal, raising awareness on clinical and global health topics and health-related matters. These are written in-house by the journal’s editorial team and are signed by the journal (eg, The Lancet weekly signs “The Lancet”). Editorials are not externally peer reviewed." The scope of MEDRS is well described at the explanatory essay Wikipedia:Biomedical information. The text current citing The Lancet editorial does not contain biomedical information: "food and medicine shortages" are something subject to general reporting standards.

Where the rest of the section touches biomedical information is on population statistics such as "36% of Venezuelan children had stunted growth prior to sanctions" and "a 31% rise in deaths between 2017 and 2018 was due to the 2017 sanctions, and that 40,000 people in Venezuela may have died as a result". However the "prior to sanctions", "due to the 2017 sanctions" and "as a result [of sanctions]" are well outside of MEDRS scope (for example, sanctions sometimes have little effect if the country is self-sufficient or has other allies who supply instead, both of which are political or circumstantial, not biomedical or healthcare). The population data here isn't your typical sort of WHO annual epidemiological report. I'd expect the stunted growth figure to be sourced to a government agency or respected NGO for example. The deaths are just government statistics, not biomedical. Attributing these things to sanctions is a political judgement.

I wouldn't regard The Lancet editorial much differently to an editorial in a high quality newspaper, though I would expect them to be more knowledgeable and reliable on health topics than a newspaper. It may be valid for the explicitly attributed opinion of a learned medical journal, but not for stating facts in wikivoice. -- Colin°^Talk 10:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Considering this, which I was unaware of, I think it would be good to consider if The Lancet statement has due weight in the article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Colin are you comfortable with inclusion of Weisbrot's content on deaths ? For background, Mark Weisbrot is an economist (and an advocate for chavismo). I have not objected to its inclusion because a) it got wide coverage, and b) the analysis was well refuted. But it would be good to have an external opinion on whether that content is given too much weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Assessing the weight is a bit outside of my zone as I'm not familiar with the topic or its sources. But if you've got a good handful of commentators examining the claims and refuting them, then that does lend weight to the fact that the original claim was widely covered and so may warrant mention. Some thoughts are that "by Mark Weisbrot and Jeffrey Sachs" raises a question "why should I care about two random people". Would it be appropriate to say the report was "by the Center for Economic and Policy Research" and do we need to name both authors? We could mention/link Weisbrot when we attribute their quote from the Independent newspaper. Also, the text says it was "described as invalid and disputed by other economists and accounts". Were there any other economists or accounts that support it? If so, then maybe the way we describe this might need modifying as it currently suggests universal criticism. -- Colin°^Talk 11:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I personally haven't found other experts or economists supporting this claim, even though I have looked for them. The sources that repeat this claim always cite back the CEPR and both authors. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any other body of work supporting Weisbrot's theory (which was well debunked). In a general rewrite of that section, I attempted to remove most mention of individuals, and organize instead the content thematically, but a) that rewrite was partially undone, and 2) IIRC, I did not even attempt to remove Weisbrot, as that would likely lead to editwarring as seen here and in other Venezuelan articles. Attempting to restore or allocate due weight on pro-chavismo points of view is rarely productive, and Weisbrot is preferenced by some editors. I expected that removing him would lead to weeks of unproductive discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Nbauman you've had alternate views on interpretation of MEDRS since the earliest days of its formation (see Archive 1, Archive 2, and Archive 3 where you argued for inclusion of lay sources, popular press, and tabloids as sources for biomedical content-- consensus was reached, the page was accepted as a guideline, and we have WP:MEDPOP today). My view is that we have accurately reflected various opinions on sociopolitical and economic matters in this version. If you want to argue that this content is biomedical, then including opinions is going to be tougher; it's hard to have it both ways here. And if there's anything in that section that may not meet MEDRS, that would be Weisbrot's (non-medical-expertise) claims about deaths, so if we're going to invoke MEDRS here, we'd best look at whether the Weisbrot content belongs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Biomedical information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I saw the note at WT:MEDRS. The paragraph that seems to be disputed involves claims about using "food as a political weapon", a government that "resisted humanitarian aid", and "food and medicine shortages".

In the section Wikipedia:Biomedical information#What is not biomedical information?, you will find things like "impacts on the economy" and "public perception". Whether political decision A causes drug shortage B is not biomedical information – emphasis on the "biology" part, which is MEDRS's focus. (There is more to medicine than biomedicine, but MEDRS is about biomedical claims.)

What this means is: This information is not about biomedical information, so MEDRS does not apply. Since a more specific guideline does not apply, then plain old ordinary WP:V and WP:RS apply. Both of them favor scholarly sources (such as an opinion piece in the The Lancet), and both of them have advice about how to handle opinion statements (ditto). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

So we have now feedback agreeing with my original statement; WMrapids are you satisfied now with the "thorough feedback" on this (non-) "controversial discussion"? We have included, and attributed, due weight non-MEDRS opinions. If any of these opinions are UNDUE, that's a separate matter; the introduction of the MEDRS guideline here is not relevant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 27 December 2023

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis → International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENT. Sources predominantly use the term of "international sanctions" due to their scope and that they include those issued by the European Union ([27][28][29][30][31]), including by references used in this article, and the convention extends to articles such as International sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War, International sanctions during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, International sanctions during apartheid, International sanctions against Iran, International sanctions against Iraq, International sanctions against Afghanistan, International sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, International sanctions against North Korea and International sanctions against Syria. NoonIcarus (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: See Talk:Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis/Archive 2#Requested move 29 June 2023 for the discussion which led to this title (from the proposed title). SilverLocust 💬 20:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  This is a valuable thread.

  The principles of concision weigh against the proposed change. I oppose the current move request on concision grounds. “International” does little for us while adding length.

  There may be precision grounds as well, although I view that as a lesser concern. Our readership is a lay readership, and we have to reckon with the fact that some people will view “international” as suggest of an international consensus or as a similar construct to “worldwide.” JArthur1984 (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ricardo Hausmann

JArthur1984 added text that explains Ricardo Hausmann was an appointee of Juan Guaido when he wrote the opinion. Readers need to understand that Hausmann had just received a position working for the U.S.-supported Venezuelan opposition when he wrote the opinion placing blame on the government rather than on U.S. sanctions. Bobfrombrockley removed the source saying, "that's synth; this is in the source already so avoids synth". I don't agree that it is WP:SYNTH. I don't see any conclusion that is draw other than we better understand who the opinion is coming from.

Bobfrombrockley also rewrote the language describing Hausmann to match the description found in Hausmann's opinion piece--a description probably written by Hausmann himself--that identifies him as primarily and academic and only an "advisor" to Guaido leaving out his far more significant involvement with Guaido.

I restored the language as added by JArthur1984. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Although I respect the revision to my edit, I do believe my version is preferable. It is better to attribute extrinsically than with the source's own self-description. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe it's WP:SYNTH (combining material from multiple sources to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source) because it is using a source which doesn't mention the critique we are talking about. It's potentially Poisoning the well. But also I believe "academic" is not that informative (if he were a historian of ancient Sumeria, his view might not be noteworthy); his specific expertise as a development economist is what's important. I don't see why being an "appointee" of Guaido is relevant either. It would be more relevant to say what he was appointed as (Venezuela's representative to the Inter-American Development Bank), but that would be very wordy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)