Talk:Venezuelan presidential crisis/Archive 1

"Following the death..."[edit]

The beginning of Background reads "Following the death of former President Hugo Chávez, Venezuelans suffered a socioeconomic crisis under his successor..." but per our own Crisis in Venezuela page, the socioeconomic crisis began sometime in 2010, which is during the Chávez era and before his death. We have another 2013-present economic crisis in Venezuela page that specifies 2013, but that seems arbitrary and notes the declining indicators from 2012. 129.93.184.33 (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to correct Kingsif (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Military conflict infobox?[edit]

Surely there's a more appropriate infobox template than {{Infobox military conflict}} for this? {{Infobox civil conflict}}, perhaps? If there's no objection I'll convert it over later today. ansh 666 03:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using the military conflict one isn't saying it's a military conflict, it's just got the parameters that work to show the info. Kingsif (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But it absolutely doesn't. Maduro and Guaido aren't military commanders. The governments and organisations aren't "strength". Nothing fits. ansh 666 04:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does the civil conflict infobox have "similar" categories that mean information will actually show? If so, replacement is good. I haven't used that infobox before, so I went with the one I know will layout info appropriately, awkward titles or not. Kingsif (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does, in fact. I'm in the process of converting. Thanks, ansh 666 05:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a quick swap of military->civil; commanders->leadfigures; strength->numbers. Looks alright. Kingsif (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ansh666: whatever you did broke it. I reverted, but might incorporate the show/hide for Guaidó support. Kingsif (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I didn't see you'd already changed it. It's no problem to use yours. Thanks, ansh 666 06:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yours would've been fine if it hadn't restructured and hidden half the info, I don't think you formatted it quite right. If you can make one that perhaps just replaces "numbers" with "support", that'd be good. Kingsif (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Countries in infobox[edit]

Can we please have some more sources for these entries? I just removed Mexico as the source by it just said that Nicolás Maduro reached out to them for support. There is no indication that Mexico has agreed to support him or help out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-removed Mexico. All the countries I added have sources, the rest were added in long series of edits by one user I think. Kingsif (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Norway and Iceland for the time being as I was unable to find any source for them in English, Norwegian or Icelandic. It might be best to just purge every country from the list that is mentioned without a source. --Painocus (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that, check the ones with sources though too to make sure the info matches up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please remove the EU from the infobox or list a source that actually states the EU has supported the National Assembly? The current source doesn't actually say it does. - Pax Psychosis (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Italy just recognized the new government Theasiancowboy (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico AMLO said again that they're remain neutral 9 hours ago Theasiancowboy (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with 23 January 2019 Venezuela presidency claim[edit]

At the moment this appears to be an unjustified content fork. Additionally there are POV issues. In the lead Maduro is declared in wiki-voice to be an illegitimate president. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

whoops, missed quotation marks in lead. Continue discussion, any other POV concerns? Kingsif (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well the so called coup d'état has not (thus far) been successful. So I think we are getting ahead of ourselves here. See also WP:DELAY. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't think of a better title, some media are using the term. Kingsif (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other concern: should it be merged with this page or 2019 Venezuelan protests? Less confusing location-wise with its own page. And a significant event by itself no matter if the "coup" is successful or not. Kingsif (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

I think that 2019 Venezuelan coup d'état may be an article that can be kept and improved on, since the 23 January events had international significance, but with a bad title, because

there is so far no consensus at all to consider this a coup d'état, as the National Assembly asserts the presidency claim is constitutionally valid;
whatever it is, it's unclear whether it will be successful, or merely one event in the whole crisis in Venezuela, in which case the article would be about an attempt, if any;
subjectively, there are POV issues not just in the title but also in the choices of facts/events to give space to
the "In The News" discussion is currently linking to this article, which predates the other one.

At the same time, I think Kingsif is in perfectly good faith in making this article, and I suspect only time will really tell if it warrants having on its own (also with respect to WP:ITN). Right now I think it's worth being worked on, and this request should probably remain open for longer.

LjL (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who suggested making a separate article for the event... any suggested contributions to it? Kingsif (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I probably jumped the gun with saying it should be merged. I think it deserves more attention and people should discuss whether it should remain separate. In the ITN page, what I said was that it should have its own article or the link should be to 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, mainly because I didn't like the fact that President of Venezuela and Juan Guaidó were appearing as the main article for the ITN blurb. Here, mainly, I think calling it a "coup d'état" is problematic, because ultimately there will be long discussions about what it is, but right now, do we have WP:RS saying it's a coup? If we don't, there's certainly going to be people saying it shouldn't be called a coup, and I can understand the reasons. Maybe for now let's figure out a different title (although the namespace is already pretty crowded so I'm not sure what to even call it)? What about something with "disputed presidency" or "presidency dispute"? LjL (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC, which are currently discussing it as main headline, and the Guardian tomorrow are using both "regime change" and "coup". The BBC. Right now, if you have access to their news channel online. Kingsif (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest "23 January 2019 Venezuelan protests", or something, then I put the BBC on. Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC is an RS but words they throw around a bit on air shouldn't be taken with so much weight. Is any source actually making a claim that power has been seized by Guiadó, as opposed to 1) having obtained it legally (constitutionally, etc), and 2) not having obtained it at all because Maduro is de facto still under control? I realize these are questions that instigate original research, but we also can't use "coup" just because a source or two used it, or even "regime change" when we aren't sure at all that there has been one yet. It should be given more than a few hours to settle before calling this a coup — really, IMO you're just going to have a number of "merge" votes if you insist that this is definitely a coup. LjL (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't insist it's a coup... what do you think of "23 January 2019 Venezuelan protests", which may have to be used in absence of an actual name for it. Kingsif (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's less than a coup, but more than just protests, or those would definitely be lumped into existing articles. I think something about presidency has to be involved in the title, although this article is already about that... which would be a point in favor of a merger, per se. Plus, as I've now elaborated a bit at WP:ITN/C, I'm concerned that the current blurb gives completely the wrong impression (whether we like it or not, chances are Matura is still in charge now)... that's not directly relevant, but the pieces of the wikipuzzle should fit somehow. LjL (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually a bit tempted to just stick the date, country, then "presidency claim" on it, but that would be long... hmm 23 January 2019 Venezuela presidency claim? Kingsif (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks silly, but until we know what it is and what the majority of sources call it, I'm more okay with a long awkward title that's just descriptive, than with a catchy title that I know for sure will be controversial. Keep in mind if you move it the merge request won't be closed just because you moved it, though (you probably know that, but still). LjL (talk)

Quick P.S.: with that title, you could go something like "A presidency claim was asserted on 23 January 2019 by Juan Guaidó ..." in the ITN blurb, and see how that fares. LjL (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll move it to that and let the discussion continue. Would @Ad Orientem: be able to change the title in the merge request? Kingsif (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Nobody is calling it a coup, and not yet sufficient evidence that this is a distinct event within the wider crisis. — Amakuru (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and erase what’s written there. Only one user has edited that page and he’s clearly personally engage on the matter, from what I noticed in his user page and history of edits. --Lecen (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

things that are irrelevant to the discussion. and pretty rude. maybe take the history as expertise, like I'd assume you have on Brazil? Kingsif (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should assume good faith in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 2019 Venezuelan coup d'état and 2019 Venezuelan protests into 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. Nice4What (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protests are a separate thing. By the end of the year there will likely be many completely unrelated protests. See: the protest pages for the last 6 years. Kingsif (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose very important event. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of the event is not under discussion, but that alone isn't sufficient reason to have a separate article for it if it's part of a deeply linked chain of important events that form a larger event. LjL (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per others. Spengouli (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not change the title to '2019 Venezuelan coup d'état' it was not a coup, it was the people and President Guaido following the orders of the Constitution. Therefore, it is just a crisis User:Ballers19 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Merged----ZiaLater (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2019[edit]

This edit request to 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

! Countries that recognize Juan Guaido !! Countries that recognize Nicolas Maduro Crisd000 (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request to include table[edit]


Countries that recognize Juan Guaido	Countries that recognize Nicolas Maduro
Albania	Bolivia
Argentina	China
Brazil	Cuba
Canada	Iran
Chile	Mexico
Colombia	Nicaragua
Costa Rica	Russia
Denmark	Turkey
Ecuador
Guatemala
Honduras
Israel
Kosovo
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Spain
United Kingdom
United States of America

Sorry, no. See above discussion: list in infobox is cleaner. But, willing to have further discussion of including a table if users see value. Kingsif (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral— Has potential to be more organized than infobox, but where would supranational bodies, etc. go?----ZiaLater (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of countries supporting the current map not a repacement for supranational infobox. Since the envents are currently changing, its easier to keep updated than the Map where no country names are shown/harder to tell. Crisd000 (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How would it improve the article if it replaced the map? Maps are useful because they show distribution - is it countries nearby or far away that support/not., etc. Replacing a valuable visual resource with a duplicate list doesn't seem very useful to me - detrimental, in fact. Kingsif (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting not replacing.Crisd000 (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ah. Kingsif (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, leaning to No include - adds nothing, big both size and data -wise, purpose of map is not necessarily to be able to identify every single country, though I'd expect most people have a good enough knowledge to understand at least "South America", "US & Canada", "Russia & China" "Northern Europe", which is what generally matters in this case. For specifics, infobox. Kingsif (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This list keeps updating every now and then on twitter as presidents pronounce. Theres no where in wikipedia's article the whole list of this valid and reelevant information. Im open to switch to a less bulky but organized format. Current list on twitter: Support Guaido US, Canada, Brazil, Paraguay, Colombia, Argentina, Peru, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Chile, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Denmark, Sweden, Georgia, Ukraine, UK, Albany, Kosovo, Spain. Support Maduro: Mexico, Bolivia, Cuba,China,Russia,Turkey,Nicaragua,Iran. "purpose of map is not necessarily to be able to identify every single country" exactly why you need a supporting list for the map, its information is incomplete (and by now outdated). Crisd000 (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Im starting to think Kingsif is biased toward the Maduro party, prefering to show extension of territory over a detailed list of countries in both sides of the conflict, therefore prompting to omit this information. Crisd000 (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So I don't respond for 10 minutes - to add a ref for El Salvador switching loyalty to support Guaidó, by the way - and you accuse me of touting Maduro-bias? So you're using disregard of AGF as a supporting argument now? I stated my view and the reasons why, what more do you want? Kingsif (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)(edit conflict)[reply]
Sorry for hurting your feelings. Any valid reason to outdo my previos statement about uncomplete map information? Crisd000 (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't hurt my feelings, I think it was an unnecessary escalation. And, yeah, the reasons as I see it are that you say the list would "support" the map, but the map doesn't require that support because it intends to show the spread of views, and because most people can identify the rough outlines. Furthermore, there's already a list in the infobox. I honestly think the list would be more valuable separately than with the map. Kingsif (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List update: Pro Guaido: US, Canada, Brazil, Paraguay, Colombia, Argentina, Peru, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Chile, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Denmark, Sweden, Georgia, Ukraine, UK, Albany, Kosovo, Spain, El Salvador. Pro Maduro: Mexico, Bolivia, Cuba, China, Russia, Turkey, Nicaragua, Iran, Syria. I couldnt find any references of South Africa supporting Maduro. Crisd000 (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where to put states in the infobox![edit]

before any edit wars happen: @Nice4What: and @ZiaLater:, please discuss Palestine.

@ParadiseDesertOasis8888: Any chance you can put the Neutral states somewhere else? The infobox is barely readable now. Kingsif (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I don't know how to fix the infobox so if it isn't working, then I suggest the neutral states be moved. ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo[edit]

@BobNesh: Kosovo is not recognised by the UN, but it is recognised by other countries - including Venezuela - as a state. Wikipedia is neutral on if it's a state or not, so we can't pass judgement on that. No matter whether you think it's a state or not, it gets to go in the infobox. Remarkably, in the "Non-UN" section, with other nations that users like you could dispute because you don't believe in them. (Not to mention, Venezuela does recognise Kosovo). Kingsif (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong! Venezuela doesn't recognise Kosovo.BobNesh (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, Wikipedia doesn't pass judgement, we just note that it's not recognised by the UN, but that there is relevant info that we must include. Please stop removing it, there have been multiple users saying not to. Kingsif (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine[edit]

@Kingsif: Palestine is a non-UN state. I thought that is where it belonged in the infobox?----ZiaLater (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't know. But you and Nice4What have both reverted it once, so I thought I'd ping you both to debate where it should go before anyone gets into an edit war :) Kingsif (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice, I thought it was being misplaced in the edits. Should be in the non-UN seciton of the infobox.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nice4What: Not sure what "Non-UN" pertains to in the infobox. I thought it meant member states and not observers. What do you think?----ZiaLater (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who specifically separated the foreign states into a "Non-UN members" subsection for Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Kosovo. I even put a hidden editor note that read "NON MEMBERS AND NON OBSERVERS" to avoid Palestine or the Vatican (if it were to ever take a position) from being listed with those states, since they are UN observer states. I was trying to separate the states like is seen on List of sovereign states. Nice4What (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

China[edit]

@Jim7049: Let's not edit war. You keep using the same source, but if you actually read it, you'll notice that it says:

"As oil-rich Venezuela’s main ally and creditor, China faces a dilemma – caught between backing Maduro and not taking sides – as it weighs the implications of a growing social and political crisis on its multibillion-dollar investment, analysts said. Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying called on “all parties to remain rational and keep calm, and reach a political settlement through peaceful dialogue”. Asked directly if China recognised Maduro, Hua said Beijing sent representatives to his inauguration. “We respect Venezuela’s efforts to uphold its sovereignty, independence and stability,” she added. “China opposes foreign forces from interfering into Venezuela affairs.”"

That's not saying they recognise him as President, that's saying they're currently abstaining from saying anything. Kingsif (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It says in the source:

"China voiced support for the increasingly isolated Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on Thursday as the Latin American country plunged deeper into turmoil over a diplomatic showdown with the United States."

That is definitely uncontested support. Jim7049 (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say support of what - it sounds, from the rest of the article, to be moral support. If they haven't said they "recognize him as President", then they don't. Especially when they were directly asked and didn't answer. Kingsif (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are not making a too hard stance on the side of Maduro, but China is a big Maduro ally. The current announcement being not overtly harsh doesn't mean a change in their stance. Jim7049 (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contrarily, I think that not giving an answer when asked if they recognize Maduro as president shows a "change" in stance - but if you read any analysis they say China only ever supported Maduro because of oil - and, since they have abstained from giving a position, then Wikipedia must list them as being neutral. You can't say that because of history China not saying they don't support him means they must do. We have to agree with the source, where they remain neutral (as every other source also shows). Kingsif (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really the source says: "China voiced support for the increasingly isolated Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on Thursday as the Latin American country plunged deeper into turmoil over a diplomatic showdown with the United States." So I don't know where you get the being neutral idea. Jim7049 (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It also says "Asked directly if China recognised Maduro, Hua said Beijing sent representatives to his inauguration. “We respect Venezuela’s efforts to uphold its sovereignty, independence and stability,” she added. “China opposes foreign forces from interfering into Venezuela affairs.”" — asked directly, and didn't answer. How isn't that getting through to you? Kingsif (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the source says China support Maduro that's what we are putting into the article. Jim7049 (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to dictate that. You really don't seem like you're in any way willing to discuss, let alone concede. Not very good editing practice. Kingsif (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to discuss it with other editors. This is what I believe and what the source says. Jim7049 (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt it's what you believe, I just want you to give a genuine think about whether you may be misinterpreting or adding background knowledge to the article, because it most certainly doesn't say that China recognizes Maduro as president. Kingsif (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources are saying China has supported Maduro. We will see how this turns out, though.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St. or Saint[edit]

Should the Saint Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines be shortened to St. or remain as is? The infobox uses both right now. I think they should be Saint because that's what's used in their Wikipedia articles. ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 06:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ParadiseDesertOasis8888: "St." is preferred right now since it uses less space, data and makes the list of countries look more accurate in the info box (most countries take up one line in the infobox, "Saint Vincent and the Grenadines" takes up 3-4 lines).----ZiaLater (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

ZiaLater, one question, why did you eliminate the Democratic Party of Equatorial Guinea and SYRIZA? Can not political parties be mentioned? Several political movements of the left or far left around the world have expressed their recognition to Maduro as president.--Gustavo Parker (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of parties worldwide and all of them have opinions. Makes no sense to start listing party opinions outside of Venezuela Bohbye (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gustavo Parker: What User:Bohbye says, there are countless political parties out there.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SYRIZA is currently a party that governs/rules Greece, they sided with Maduro thus Greece should be counted. 77.217.233.160 (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Widely Disputed Election" Disputed by? Relevant information[edit]

That comment is worth a citation needed template when both the percentage of people who voted for Maduro was very high and also the UN observers involved in the said election came forward to say it was fair. Just because NATO disputes something doesn't make it "widely disputed" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6D52:CB30:A8D0:6DB2:BD0A:7D4 (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed by half the nations in the world. It links to the page about the elections, which has a horde of citations, so doesn't need one itself. Kingsif (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Internal bodies[edit]

PDVSA and Electricidad de Caracas should not be listed since they are not included in the cited reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsaturno (talk • contribs) 10:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What? They're both mentioned, PDVSA is even the header image of the article. Kingsif (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia doesn't recognize Guaido as Venezuela's president![edit]

https://mundo.sputniknews.com/europa/201901251085023338-serbia-no-reconoce-a-guaido/ 77.217.233.160 (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Russian state media is a biased source. They could just as easily publish a report saying the UK supports Maduro, doesn't make it true. Kingsif (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Kingsif. Please understand and use independent, third-party reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By your standard then BBC is not reliable source? 77.217.233.160 (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Russian state media is much more reliable source than Western mainstream media and yes, Serbian PM said in Davos that Serbia won't recognise Guaido as Venezuela's president.BobNesh (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Foreign Support Is Not Clear And Must Be Verified[edit]

A few countries listed as supporting Maduro is not clear on whether there is support or not. Example being Mexico which has a decisively non-intervention policy, and does not outright support Maduro. They are probably closer to neutral or no statement rather than outright support in the same way some leaders from other countries have expressed it. From France24 republishing L’agence France-Presse AFP [1]:

""We recognize the authorities elected in accordance with the Venezuelan constitution," Jesus Ramirez, spokesman for Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, told AFP. He later wrote on Twitter that Mexico was "analyzing the situation in Venezuela." "For the moment, there is no change in our diplomatic relations with the country nor its government," he said." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.21.209 (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UK supports Guaido[edit]

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-venezuela-politics-britain/uk-supports-venezuelas-guaido-as-national-assembly-head-pm-mays-spokesman-idUKKCN1PI1IQ The map and infobox need to be updated to reflect the UK's support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.246.254.12 (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source says very clearly that UK supports Guaidó "as head of the democratically elected National Assembly", which is not the same as recognizing his claim to the national presidency. Impru20^talk 19:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True, found a better source. This NYT article states that the Foreign Secretary very clearly backs Guaido as the leader of Venezuela, not Maduro. https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2019/01/24/world/europe/24reuters-venezuela-politics-britain-hunt.html Willing to leave it be until May's govt makes an official declaration of recognition but that should be coming shortly. 129.246.254.12 (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that does not clash with their previous statement in support of Guaidó's leadership in the National Assembly as opposed to Maduro and is still seen as a shy support. They have not formally recognized Guaidó's self-proclamation. Impru20^talk 19:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, no worries. Will keep looking out for the UK's stance. Can post an update here tomorrow, if they put out something official. 129.246.254.12 (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it'll come until Maduro has gone: "The statement stopped just short of echoing US language on recognising Guaidó, however. “It is UK policy to recognise states, not governments,” a British official said." Kingsif (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The UK has now been, incorrectly, added to the article infobox's list of states that recognise Guaido. The cited source doesn't recognise Guaido as president but merely says he's the right person to take Venezuela forward, which isn't the same thing. According to the Guardian article cited by Kingsif, the UK has deliberately refrained from recognising Guaido as president.

The UK has officially supported Juan Guaido in the UN Security Council held on January 26th, 2019 - http://www.ntn24america.com/america-latina/venezuela/en-vivo-consejo-de-seguridad-de-onu-discute-la-crisis-en-venezuela-103256 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.158.111.52 (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the source you quote explicitly says that the UK has *not* recognised Gaidó as President: "Del lado de Guaidó están también los miembros europeos del Consejo de Seguridad (Francia, el Reino Unido, Bélgica, Alemania y Polonia), aunque estos no han dado por ahora el paso de reconocerle como presidente." So Wikipedia shouldn't include the UK in the infobox among countries that "recognise Gaidó as President" (very specific wording) (and I see the UK has now been removed from that section). 16:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.201.238 (talk)

The UK also just said that it supports the EU statement, according to the BBC. Kingsif (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the UK, France, Germany and Spain all said that they would recognise Gaidó in eight days' time if no elections had been held by then. Which confirms that they don't currently recognise Gaidó as President. And also weirdly contradicts their previous statement that it would be impossible to recognise Guaidó because "it is UK policy to recognise states, not governments". 86.175.201.238 (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico and Uruguay[edit]

In the map Uruguay is blue, and the Mexico is red. But we don't have sources about those countries. 73.158.103.169 (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added option of "Supporting the government of Venezuela - Calling for non intervention in its internal affairs"[edit]

Stop the edit wars, please. Bohbye (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

European Ultimatum[edit]

Spain, France, Germany and the UK issued an ultimatum to Maduro, threatening to recognize Guiadó in eight days unless free elections are called: [2] --Mr.Election (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2019[edit]

This edit request to 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The current president is Nicolas Maduro under international law 86.19.149.99 (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greece[edit]

As Hamas and the South African Communist Party are listed as organisations that endorse Maduro as the legitimate president, it may be worth adding to the infobox another supporter, Greece's governing political party Syriza. ( http://www.ekathimerini.com/236948/article/ekathimerini/news/syriza-expresses-support-for-venezuelas-maduro ) 19:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

OK Jim7049 (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Map image is outdated[edit]

Who maintains it and if it’s not maintained why keep it? Bohbye (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bohbye: Accuracy is more important than the hype. We are trying to make sure Wikipedia is accurate and reliable. Share your concerns about outdated information on the map's talk page if you like!----ZiaLater (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico is neutral[edit]

Mexico is neutral and not with either government: [3]. (Wasn't there a section for neutral governments in the info box previously?) David O. Johnson (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn’t and I proposed adding such a section Bohbye (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why Equatorial Guinea isn't added yet for countries that support Maduro?[edit]

https://www.pdge-guineaecuatorial.com/manifiesto-de-solidaridad-con-el-partido-socialista-unido-de-venezuela-y-su-gobierno-legitimo/ RBL2000 (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added Kingsif (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid facts in article[edit]

− This article lists Sweden among countries that recognise Guaidó. But on Radio Sweden, it is reported that "Utrikesminister Margot Wallström vill inte kommentera om Sverige erkänner självutnämnde presidenten Jean Guaidó eller inte" (Foreign Minister Margot Wallström will not comment on whether Sweden recognises the self-styled president Juan Guaidó or not". ( https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=7139169 ) This makes me wonder how many of the other countries listed as "supporting" Guaidó's claim are factual and how many are made up, imagined or exaggerated. 22:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Sweden[edit]

We are going to have a hard time debating whether the article is accurate if my comments are going to get deleted for "original research". Is that really valid, to remove a comment from the talk page for original research? What I want to challenge is the article's infobox's claim that Sweden has recognised Guaidó. In response I cite this source: https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=7139169 where Sweden say they don't take a stance on that question. How does that count as research? And if it is research, how did the writer of the info in the infobox add that info without conducting research?? 86.175.201.238 (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not, Sweden clearly are one of the many European nations not taking a proper stance. It should be in the National Assembly section. Kingsif (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, so please could someone remove them from the list of states that "Recognize Guaidó" in the "foreign states" section in the infobox. I'd do it myself but the article doesn't let me edit it. Thanks Kinsif. 86.175.201.238 (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland[edit]

Officially they are not recognising either government; the head (used as source for Guaidó support) has retweeted it as well

https://twitter.com/eda_dfae/status/1088752224778506241?s=21 (Français)

https://twitter.com/swissmfa/status/1088761587790475265?s=21 (Anglais)

Denmark and the United Kingdom[edit]

Both of them support Guaidó per several different sources:

Denmark^[1]^[2]^[3]
United Kingdom^[1]^[4] ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b Hanke, Jakob; von der Burchard, Hans (24 January 2019). "Brussels caught off-guard by Venezuela's political turmoil". POLITICO. Retrieved 26 January 2019.
^ "The Latest". The Tribune. 24 January 2019. Retrieved 24 January 2019.
^ W, Christian (24 January 2019). "International News in Brief: Denmark backs Venezuelan opposition in wake of coup attempt – The Post". CPH Post. Retrieved 26 January 2019.
^ Long, Gideon (24 January 2019). "Maduro wins backing of Venezuelan senior military figures". The Irish Times. Retrieved 26 January 2019.

Denmark is Done per the sources. The UK is part of a group of countries wanting new elections (their statement may have come after the initial comment). power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

India[edit]

The provided source for India did not state that it supports Maduro, yet some users are trying to synthetize it and argue that India should be there because it "recognized him before". It has been suggested that we should bring every country in the world into the infobox on Maduro's side unless it expressly supported Guaidó, which seems plain wrong. This article and infobox are meant for the presidential crisis conflict, and that infobox field is meant for parties in the conflict. If a country doesn't expressly get involved, that means they're not involved and are neutral, so it can't be automatically put on either side unless a proper source that reflects on that is provided. Nonetheless, rather than starting an edit war, maybe issues should be discussed here on the first place. Impru20^talk 22:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't recognize Guaido then they recognize Maduro, it is simple as that and that is clear unless India should spell it out. 77.217.233.160 (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:SYNTH. If the source does not say that they recognize Maduro in the presidential crisis, then they don't. They don't recognize Guaidó either. They are just not taking any sides. As a result, you can't just add them at either side. That is so obvious and simple that there is even a WP policy on it: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. Impru20^talk 23:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have source that India doesn't recognize last presidential elections where Maduro won? 77.217.233.160 (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not work that way. Under WP verifiability standards, people using the encyclopedia must be able to check that the posted information comes from a reliable source. If the provided source does not support such a claim, then it is not verifiable and, thus, has no place in Wikipedia. In other words: it is the people adding a given information the ones who must care to provide the sourcing for that information, not for others to prove that such information is false in what would constitute an argument from ignorance.

If you have a source proving India's involvement in this conflict on the side of Maduro, show it. Otherwise, India's presence in the infobox is misleading and outright original research as it would mean dragging India into a conflict in which they have not become involved. Impru20^talk 00:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These articles report unambiguously the neutral position that the Indian government has taken on the issue: (India remains neutral, urges dialogue to end Venezuela crisis), (India walks the middle path on Venezuela crisis, urges political solution ) I have made the changes on the main article to reflect this accordingly. Flickotown (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remove India from the list Theasiancowboy (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done India is not mentioned in the article at this time. None of the sources here suggest that the government has an official position, and I would not expect them to take any position immediately. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to Noah Feldman that Maduro undermined the constitution, but also Guaido doesn't abide/follow it.[edit]

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-24/u-s-recognition-of-venezuela-s-guaido-is-disguised-regime-change

Noah Feldman is expert in law, he analyzed the Venezuelan law/constituion and his article on Bloomberg is his conclussion, this should be implemented into the article as it explains and clarifies details of the crisis involving Venezuelan law/constitution for which Guaido and the opposition assert Maduro isn't the President of Venezuela. 77.217.233.160 (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every side has an opinion and pundits supporting each side. The list is endless and useless. --Bohbye (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement can be taken as worth of your standard for which vast majority if not entirety of the article can be rendered useless due to "opinions". Noah Feldman is expert in law, what he says has weight and has explained in essence that while Maduro undermined the constitution/law, the opposition is not abiding it when making claim that Guaido who proclaimed himself to be the president is the one now and not Maduro as they assert when calling upon articles of constitution which do not have the power to do so. It is farce, them claiming that something is that isn't. 77.217.233.160 (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For every expert, there is another expert saying the exact opposite. It is an opinion piece by Noah Feldman, that's all. He lost me at "Noah Feldman is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist" --Bohbye (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion piece: no. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:27, 27 January

Not done I see no reason why this political pundit from the United States is more relevant than any of the others. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

8 days to call elections[edit]

I am not finding mention of European governments giving Maduro eight days to call elections, or they will back Gauido. Am I missing it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go:[4]. David O. Johnson (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, David O. Johnson; I see someone has partially added some information already, using another source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done the "eight days" appears well sourced. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Equatoriale Guinée / Hamas / PDVSA[edit]

The ruling party PDGE (in the name of the Président) has expressed support for Maduro. Should be added to both infobox and map

https://www.pdge-guineaecuatorial.com/manifiesto-de-solidaridad-con-el-partido-socialista-unido-de-venezuela-y-su-gobierno-legitimo/ https://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20190125/46887864/el-partido-gobernante-de-guinea-ecuatorial-expresa-solidaridad-con-maduro.html

Hamas, as the controller of the Gaza Strip should also be mentioned

http://www.trt.net.tr/francais/ameriques/2019/01/25/le-hamas-condamne-la-tentative-de-coup-d-etat-au-venezuela-1133207

PDVSA

CNBC is more reliable than the other website I believe

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/24/reuters-america-guaido-vs-maduro-who-backs-venezuelas-two-presidents.html

Done Equatorial Guinea and Hamas are both listed. (I'm not sure who made the initial comment) power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguay[edit]

The only source stating Uruguay recognizes Maduro is Sputnik. In the Sputnik article, they even say that an official statement "will come out tomorrow or later, not today because what is coming from Caracas is being analyzed to make a statement where the emphasis will be to bring the parties closer and reach a peaceful solution of the controversy through the dialogue and negotiation". Here is the official statement that was released later by Uruguay. No official recognition of Maduro as of yet from what I can see from sources.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not the only source now. Yahoo (AFP), Straits Times (Singapore) and SBS (Aus) have listed as such, along with North Korea. Nebakin (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Uruguay is not mentioned in the article at this time. The statement from the Uruguay government suggests that not mentioning it is the correct option. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico[edit]

Is Mexico neutral now? I see it in this source and see they were removed from the infobox.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done it appears so; they don't look to be mentioned as "taking sides" anywhere in the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Italian neutrality[edit]

This edit request to 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Italy officially does not support the National Assembly, as written in the article. Here the words of the PM Giuseppe Conte: "At this moment, is of fundamental importance to avoid an escalation in the country and prevent Venezuela - through the impository intervention by foreign countries - from becoming a field of division between global players."

https://www.repubblica.it/politica/2019/01/26/news/venezuela_governo_diviso_i_cinquestelle_stoppano_conte-217527748/ 93.48.40.135 (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done I don't think the Politico.eu source can claim that all EU countries take a specific position (and I'm not sure what that position is). I'm removing Italy from that section. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan be renamed to Republic of China[edit]

Republic of China is Taiwan's official name. Either edit it to Republic of China or Republic of China (Taiwan). Nebakin (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done everyone knows what is meant by Taiwan. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea and Uruguay support Maduro.[edit]

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2019/01/28/North-Korea-throws-support-behind-Venezuelas-Maduro-regime/3891548692065/

https://www.straitstimes.com/world/americas/maduro-vs-guaido-who-is-backing-whom-amid-crisis-in-venezuela https://www.sbs.com.au/news/maduro-vs-guaido-who-s-backing-whom-for-the-leadership-of-venezuela https://www.elpais.com.uy/mundo/aumenta-presion-maduro.html

Please implement on Foreign States that support Maduro. RBL2000 (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done North Korea is done. Uruguay is disputed, see the above section. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Supranational bodies and recognition[edit]

Reading the sources, I do not see explicit statements by the African Union, Arab League or OPEC supporting Maduro, only the Cuban state-run source name dropping organizations in attendance to his inauguration. Mexico attended the inauguration as well, but has remained neutral to the conflict in official statements. Should African Union, Arab League and OPEC be removed until we can find statements and better sources? Also, Mercosur needs a citation for it to be included in support for Guaidó as well.

Pinging users to help with this: @Irn: @MaoGo: @Panam2014: @Kingsif: @Jamez42:

Thanks in advance.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should be removed, they likely come from the fact that there were some representatives from these organizations in Maduro's inauguration, something that he boasted about. Still, attendance does not mean support. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As above, attendance doesn’t mean support. In fact, I think some Caribbean nations sent representatives to the inauguration but have since said they support Guaidó. Kingsif (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think its removal is the best thing to do. We should only accept written statements or clear official speech of support. --MaoGo (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done ----ZiaLater (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Map colors[edit]

Discussion is best continued at commons:File talk:Venezuela president recognition map 2019.svg power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

This map was created by AntoFran. It is proposed that the colors of each side must be different from green and black as these can be interpreted as good or evil, thus creating a bias in the article. The colors suggested are blue and yellow. This map also includes more countries since there are many more reliable sources in Spanish regarding this topic.FedericoFederico 19:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be changed, UK is neutral but is shown here as supporting blue. Kingsif (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ecuador, Jamaica, Haiti, Kosovo, Puerto Rico and Italy support the new government of Guaido and should be filled with BLUE Ballers19 (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Ballers19 (talk)[reply]

Map seems to be inconsistently colored, for example Hawaii and Puerto Rico, parts of the US, are not colored blue. Nice4What (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the corrections. This second map is based on the information provided in the article--Federico 04:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can make color corrections to the map I made easily through the svg file. Green was initially used just for the recognition of Guaidó. Red is usually used in maps to associate to the PSUV party (Maduro), but other colors can be proposed for neutrality. I will take a look at it later when I have the chance.----ZiaLater (talk) 05:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Albania and Spain just recognized guaido presidency Theasiancowboy (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And Germany Kingsif (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: @Theasiancowboy: Discussion about the map is here. Provide sources.----ZiaLater (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

France, Fr. Guiana, Germany, Albania, and Portugal all have supported Guiadó. Also, Uruguay never endorsed Maduro. Like Mexico, they offered a neutral position for dialogue. Please fix colors for all. (Ballers19)

There is some more inconsistency in map coloring. Crimea, which is part of the Ukraine, for some reason is colored red, whilst the Ukraine didn't present its position on Maduro. 130.149.12.180 (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Poor wording[edit]

The term "presidential crisis" which appears both in the title and the text of the article is poor and should be replaced with "constitutional crisis." -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it's about who's president, they're not fighting about the constitution - last time (2017) it was about the constitution, specifically that Maduro wanted to rewrite it. Shouldn't conflate the two. Kingsif (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Kingsif. (although I don't think it's a crisis at all ... it is the constitution at work ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support the current title of "2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis". It's a crisis and involves the president, that much is certain. Almost everything else is unclear. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Table of Responses[edit]

Should a table of responses be used, and foreign support placed in the infobox be removed? I think its more appropriate as it would better capture the statements by various foreign governments, while retaining the key centrality of internal Venezuelan political groups in the infobox. I am wary that content focusing on Venezuela and Venezuelan groups will be brushed aside after it becomes an international political role.

The style would be similar to this for example [5].

That would be a very big table, which would break up reading and not look very good. The current use is better, especially separating by supportee. Kingsif (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was done previously in other related and was ultimately decided against due to the large amounts of space and data used.----ZiaLater (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We almost never have a full table of statements; these often will get moved to sub-articles that eventually get deleted. The press releases are primary sources, and can be collected and analyzed by other sources. The details of the binary "supporting Maduro/Guiado" are getting included here one way or the other, I think we may want to move those details out of the infobox and into tables in the main article text. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to have a list of countries not picking sides[edit]

Switzerland for example clearly said that, see earlier comment on this talk page.

I don’t suggest to list countries that didn’t say anything, but to do list countries officially not picking any side. Bohbye (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a section for non-interventionist countries, preferable in prose but a table for this section wouldn't be amiss. Kingsif (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Censoring social media[edit]

Why does this warrant mention in the lead? As if unfree media is news in Venezuela? No context ...

Venezuela began censoring some social media outlets beginning on 21 January.

And if it must stay in the lead, can the grammar please be adjusted? Venezuela began ... beginning ... is repetitive. How about, Venezuela began censoring social media on 21 January? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Block of Wikipedia in Venezuela will by its nature be over-covered on Wikipedia. Apart from it being a useful indicator of when the crisis began, I don't see it being so important as to justify being mentioned in the lead. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This fell out of the lead in my latest edit. Block of Wikipedia in Venezuela may need a rename to be about censorship during the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, but I don't want to initiate that discussion now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Open cabildo jargon[edit]

Could we please replace the mixed language jargon, open cabildo with public assembly throughout? This jargon is not necessary or helpful, and people who do not speak Spanish have to click out to see what it means. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edits made to this extent, if they're ok? Kingsif (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It did seem excessive. I think I reverted a few of these changes by accident; apart from direct quotes and one mention of Guiado using the term it isn't really necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Côte d’Ivoire[edit]

Now that there is a section for neutral countries, Côte d’Ivoire should be there because of their comments at the UN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.5 (talk) 10:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done they are currently listed there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign national support[edit]

Something has to be clarified. Do we include nations that state that they support the National Assembly in the infobox? Or do we only include nations that only recognize Guaidó?----ZiaLater (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could have both. Clearly, when some countries recognize the National Assembly they are positioning themselves on the issue. Sure, it is not a full and explicit support for Guaidó's claim to the presidency, but it is a recognition of the Assembly's legitimacy. Maybe this could be represented under a different color? Impru20^talk 14:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see blue is used now rather than green. Possibly, light blue could be used for those countries recognizing the Assembly's legitimacy without explicitly supporting Guaidó. Impru20^talk 14:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea Kingsif (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Impru20: @Kingsif: Made some changes to the infobox to make a better explanation. Is this better?----ZiaLater (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good Kingsif (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks nice. This could be now translated to the map under a different color. Impru20^talk 15:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Impru20: I think we can wait on that. It may give an undue perception and look inaccurate. Some support for Guaidó is still coming in, so we will see.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems prudent. Nonetheless, I think the UK should be moved to the National Assembly's side as per this as well as the source listed in the infobox. These show UK support Guaidó "as head of the democratically elected National Assembly", but not that they support his claim as head of the state. Impru20^talk 15:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Internal US opposition to official US policy Bernie Sanders etc[edit]

Bernie Sanders and the like is not considered official opposition / non intervention. Those politicians do not dictate policy, the president does according to the US constitution. Additionally, we do not list internal opposition of any country to the official policy of their country regarding Venezuela, why list internal US opposition. Therefore that section needs to be removed. Bohbye (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So where do you want to add the important note that Trump's level of extreme statement is divisive in the elected politicians of his nation? Kingsif (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see those particular words in the deleted text; perhaps I am looking at the wrong deletion? Do you have a source for the statement above, or is that an expression of personal POV? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The text in the article was much more simply phrased; I wouldn't call it personal, more a fact easily inferred (to break WP:SYNTHESIS) from different sources of various US (and UK) politicians saying he's being too forceful, too quickly. Kingsif (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can add it under the pages of those politicians who oppose him. Every democratic country has an opposing party who disagrees with the official position of the ruling party. That’s life. Bohbye (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any need to document reactions to this level of detail. Bernie Sanders is a high-profile figure in American Politics, but isn't really relevant to this crisis in any way. The exact statements of every Senator are not relevant to this article. It can go on their own articles if it's DUE there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hamass and Hezbollah[edit]

Why are they listed on the page as supporters of Maduro? What is so special of them being “organizations” that have any say in this crisis? Are we going to list the opinions of every armed militia group worldwide? Removed WP:BOLD - Bohbye (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bohbye: Hezbollah is actually very controversial within Venezuela. They should remain at least.----ZiaLater (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ZiaLater: Have a better source than the biased one? --Bohbye (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bohbye: Yes.----ZiaLater (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This inquiry seems obtuse, or perhaps the author is not familiar with Venezuela. Hezbollah involvement in Venezuela, for starters. Some sources: La Republica MSN I support the re-addition of this relevant material. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if their involvement is anything beyond "anti-United States", but it seems reasonable to include this in a table (though not unduly prominently). power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox MegaThread[edit]

There are a lot of threads about individual countries on the infobox. I'm archiving those that have been done and don't have further discussion of value. Instead of starting a new section for future changes, please consider asking for them here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sources[edit]

the king — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.247.135 (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Community is calling on the United Nations to take the lead[edit]

The Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community has called on the United Nations to take the lead.

CaribDigita (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CARICOM seems like an organization that should be mentioned, at least in the short term. I'm not sure what there is to say about their role though. [6] is their own statement of actions. In my opinion, having a delegation meet with the UN Secretary-General is a high-profile way of doing nothing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spain[edit]

Spain's President recognized Guaidó.^[1] ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now, the Spanish Prime Minister (difference) has spoken to Guaidó, but I'm not sure Africa Times, who can't even get his job right, knows what he's doing. Have any Spanish sources said this? Otherwise, that would be a no. Kingsif (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I agree. "Africa Times" is not a good enough source here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "So far, African leaders are silent as world weighs in on Venezuela". Africa Times. 24 January 2019. Retrieved 26 January 2019.

Recognition by country[edit]

I propose that this information be moved out of the infobox (where it is hidden due to space concerns) and added to the article body as a table (un-hidden). It's not very useful where it is, and doesn't show up in my browser when I try to find it to check whether countries are (or are not) present; I've had to use the raw wiki-text to view the data. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: @SandyGeorgia: I recommend a section for each position that can be linked to the infobox. Readers who want to see who recognizes who can click the link on the infobox leading them to the section and its table. I can do this when I return.----ZiaLater (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of that plan, Zia ... this infobox is just far too large and unwieldy, difficult to edit, and inexperienced readers won't even know how to find the information. Besides, maintaining it sucks up editor time (like yours!) that can be better used elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the "Current international recognition" section. If it's possible to keep the infobox synced automatically with the article body, that's fine. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: Currently the "[show]" is overlapping the image of the map, so maybe there is a formatting fix for that. I will let you work on it and see how it is when I come back. Again, thanks for your help.----ZiaLater (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to get all the collapsible lists to bulleted multi-column lists, but it takes time (and there are edit conflicts). power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: Looking better now. Also, should the National Assembly section be a sub-section of the Guaidó section, or should it be separate?----ZiaLater (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked the sources to see what "supports National Assembly" means; I think it's either an implicit waiting game, or an explicit "Maduro must call new elections in the next week" waiting game. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the infobox has hyper-links to the section lower in the article where the full list of nations is found; I think this is a good approach. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline section[edit]

As a note - I think I've done all the talk page cleanup / article structure cleanup I can do myself. I'll continue to archive threads manually that are >24 hours out of date on the talk page. A few threads (in particular the map one) I plan to leave on the talk page indefinitely. Time permitting, I hope to edit the "Timeline" section, focusing on pre-January 23 events. Regarding what the current state of international recognition is, I plan to only make changes requested on the talk page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article (and talk page) are much more manageable now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Armed Forces[edit]

The Venezuelan Armed Forces have pledged loyalty to Maduro. Should be added under organisations or something — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.5 (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read again, it is on the page. Bohbye (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I meant under the map with the other organisations and everything — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.5 (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an organization, and it has its own section. Kingsif (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But the Institutional Military Front is? And the section is titled defections and just serves to highlight that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.5 (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maroc[edit]

Support Guaidó

https://www.lorientlejour.com/article/1155036/venezuela-le-maroc-apporte-son-soutien-au-president-autoproclame-juan-guaido.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.5 (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Kingsif (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the king my boy[edit]

the sources are mostly dead links — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.247.135 (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the problem may be on your end. https://dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=2019_Venezuelan_presidential_crisis SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non interference is NOT direct support of Maduro[edit]

Nations who clearly said their position is non interference with internal politics of Venezuela shuld not be listed under the section of supporting Maduro. There shuld be a new subsection of “Non Interference policy” under the Maduro section (similar to the “support the National Assembly” subsection under “Supporting Guaidó”). Sorting it out this way will be reflect the actual statement those countries. Bohbye (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done if a nation is relevant enough to the dispute that a "neutral" position is relevant, we can mention it. If (to pick a country with no particular geopolitical relevance to Venezuela) the Comoros announce they are "neutral", I'm not sure there is anything of encyclopedic value there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with so called neutrality when labeling it as not pro-Maduro and assumption of neutral as actual neutral when such is acceptance of status quo, it is different to state publicly that you're "neutral" as there is need to do so. Lack of silence is telling, specially when the US calls out for support of self-proclaimed President of Venezuela Guaido. Those who support National Assembly lean towards Guaido, those who proclaim neutrality lean towards Maduro be it Mexico or that country. 77.217.233.160 (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this right?[edit]

"On 23 January 2019, the European Union gave its first stance on Venezuela, issuing a declaration stating that "the EU fully supports the National Assembly as the democratically elected institution whose powers need to be restored and respected", though some of its member states, like the United Kingdom, later said they supported Guaidó".

This contradicts the lead section: "The dispute came to a head in early 2019 when the National Assembly of Venezuela stated that the results of the election were invalid and declared Juan Guaidó as the acting president, citing several clauses of the 1999 Venezuelan Constitution".

As I understand it, the EU, like the UK, supports Guaidó.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mock wurzel soup (talk • contribs) 00:22, January 27, 2019 Mock wurzel soup (UTC)

Mock wurzel soup, you forgot to sign. I am not seeing the contradiction you mention. Could you rephrase your question? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The implication of the first statement is that the EU and the UK have taken different views. I think this is a mistake - they both support Guaidó. The source of the confusion is that the National Assembly is not the government of Venezuela so, by supporting the National Assembly, the EU is opposing the Maduro government. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Antigua and Barbuda, Belarus[edit]

Before they are placed back into the infobox, I need to explain a few things. Political language can be complicated sometimes, especially in a situation where someone has to take sides. This is why it is recommended to use official declarations and explicit messages of support for both Maduro and Guaidó. We can not assume what there words or what the sources are trying to say or that would be WP:OR.

On to Antigua and Barbuda and Belarus. Antigua and Barbuda called for non-intervention. A lot of countries have, but not given a statement on whether they recognize Maduro. We can not assume they recognize Maduro (or Guaidó) if they do not explicitly say so. As for Belarus, the source is literally just Maduro talking on the phone. It does not have a single statement from Belarus or any audible dialogue from their side. This is sourced from the Maduro government as well, so a more proper and official source must be placed as well.

As a result of this, both nations will be removed until we can find some proper sources. Feel free to add the sources below and we can discuss how to add them. Until then, please stop with the edit warring and let's keep Wikipedia accurate.----ZiaLater (talk) 06:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to Antigua-et-Barbuda, they called the US backing of Guaidó 'a brazen regime change', something that 'has no constitutional backing', 'no support for international law'. He also called the CARICOM statement expressing concern 'timid' and believes that the group should have stated its position more forcefully. If you look more closely, it is quite clear that the country is supporting Maduro. Secondly, it would seem a bit ingenious to just make up a phone call from another country no ? Bélarus has not rejected the fact even though the tweet has been open for the world to see. Yes they have not made a public statement but why would they if they made a phone call ? We have less / worse sources for Guyane and Saint-Lucie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.5 (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an absolutely ludicrous and politically-motivated piece of arbitrary rules-lawyering. Antigua and Barbuda have used absolutely the most unequivocal language to denounce Guaidó: it's not even a case of interpreting the subtleties of "diplomatic language." Belarus supported Maduro through a presidential phone call, virtually the highest form of official diplomatic contact. This is obviously an attempt on your part to set the bar for Maduro's support impossibly high in an effort to create an impression of isolation. The manoeuvre is too cynical and transparent to succeed. Albrecht (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC

Of course there are people who's interest/agenda is to remove as much as possible from the list countries that support Maduro. RBL2000 (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine[edit]

The only source for Palestine's support for Maduro is from the Maduro government from 10 January 2019, the date of his inauguration. Just noting this here on the talk page.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely means it needs to be removed unless there is an alternative reliable source. Bohbye (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal's ruling party supports Maduro[edit]

http://kathmandupost.ekantipur.com/news/2019-01-25/nepal-communist-party-denounces-us-intervention-in-venezuelas-internal-affairs.html

Given that the party (Nepal Communist Party) leads a 2/3 majority government, it is probably the de facto official stance of the government. 103.10.28.175 (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we are using official statements by governments only.----ZiaLater (talk) 10:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Public opinion" section[edit]

The section "Public opinion" has 3 references, to the same pro-opposition website, and it links to Meganalisis (redlink). NPOV? I don't think so. emijrp (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Emijrp: It is from a secondary source and the links to the polls are located at the bottom of each article. Feel free to replace the references with the actual survey sources.----ZiaLater (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Polling in this type of situation is always difficult. I've somewhat de-emphasized this section (by moving it to the end). power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So public opinion polls conducted by the opposition is somehow informative and unbiased. It's so sad that wikipedia is becoming the "neutral" voice of western imperialism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.13.46 (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand doesn't recognize Guaido as President of Venezuela[edit]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/29/venezuela-crisis-new-zealand-guaido-interim-president?CMP=twt_gu 77.217.233.160 (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there's a "no action" section created for international recognition (and we may need one), there's nothing to be done in the article based on this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam wishes for peace and stability in Venezuela, according to Tuoi Tre News.[edit]

https://tuoitrenews.vn/news/politics/20190125/vietnam-wishes-for-peace-stability-in-venezuela-spokesperson/48691.html

I think Vietnam should be added in Vocal neutrality section, despite this country remains communist and ties strongly with Venezuela. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.80.21.139 (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Namibia[edit]

While I think it sounds like a very soft support for Maduro, should be added to the neutral countries list

http://www.mirco.gov.na/documents/140810/673389/MEDIA+RELEASE+-+NAMIBIA+POSITION+ON+VENEZUELA/e989db0c-ce0a-4dc6-b23f-b2b0f22219fe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.5 (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is El Salvador a member of the ALBA?[edit]

@Simon1811: [7]? Our article ALBA doesn't say so. In fact, we probably should not select out any specific ALBA members without sources. --GRuban (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a member but the country still expressed support for Maduro----Fenetrejones (talk)11:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockblocked SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal[edit]

Neutral

https://mofa.gov.np/11789-2/

103.70.152.5 (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done added to "Vocal neutrality". power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2019[edit]

This edit request to 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Switzerland recognize Juan Guaidó as President of Venezuela. Said by Bénédict de Cerjat, Swiss Ambassador, Head of the Americas Division, Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs in his oficial twitter (in German): https://twitter.com/SwissMFAamerica/status/1088397932397776896 2A02:1205:C697:4830:5072:5CF3:FF8:349D (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are neutral. https://twitter.com/swissmfa/status/1088761587790475265 Bénédict de Cerjat has retweeted this as well 103.70.152.5 (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done [8] is an article that suggests that Switzerland is indeed neutral. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction of people of venezuela and other countries of the world after assuming guaudo as acting president?[edit]

Guaido as acting president may be pleasing for US but for other countries liKe china,russia,india certainly it is not. Us just want to involve itself around the world's crisis and understand itself as the universal boss but now tHe time has changed a lot dear US. Ankit Tomar official (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

please see WP:NOTAFORUM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodia[edit]

https://www.khmertimeskh.com/572885/pm-warns-against-foreign-interference/ 95.168.120.43 (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Opposition opposed Guaidó swearing himself "[edit]

blocked sock

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Sockblocked Edit: [9]

@Simon1811: You completely disregarded my sources proving that an important part of the opposition wanted Guaidó to take oath, such as the Supreme Tribunal in exile or the July 16 parliamentary fraction. Quoting Capriles is interesting since he has lost a lot of confidence in the public after the 2013 elections and his promotion of participation in fraudulent elections and dialogues between government and opposition that have turned into negotiations.[10][11] --Jamez42 (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have not disregarded anything. Supporting Guaidó taking over presidency is not the same as supporting him taking it upon himself to swear an oath. Is there a source that states the later?Simon1811 (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon1811: It is the same thing, and there actually was a lengthy discussion in the Spanish Wikipedia talk page regarding this. The sources that I included explain this. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It really is not the same thing. I can say "I want Guaidó to replace Maduro but I want it to happen after Maduro steps down or is forcibly removed, Guaidó should not take any oaths until then". if I were to say that I would not be contradicting myself.Simon1811 (talk) 12:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon1811: If Maduro didn't step down until then he wouldn't really have assumed the presidency. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what that has to do with what I said.Simon1811 (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon1811: That the opposition asked Guaidó to assume the presidency and to take oath. According to the constitution, he wouldn't even be able of the former without the latter. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They wanted him to take the oath but that does not mean they wanted him to take the oath when he did do it. They wanted him to wait, seeing it as premature.Simon1811 (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon1811: Now that's made up. Capriles didn't even suggest that in the interview. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do they believe then?Simon1811 (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon1811: I didn't understand the question. In any case, sources should be provided. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Provided for what? Simon1811 (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon1811: For the claims above, of the opposition. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only information that is in the article is Capriles statement which is sourced.Simon1811 (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon1811: The information should be removed because it is misleading and because of the reasons I explained. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I already explained to you no source you have provided contradicts Capriles statement.Simon1811 (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please place a link to the edit in question at the top of this section? That would save everyone a lot of time, and will also help admins deal with tenditious editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Added it above! --Jamez42 (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did what I could but have to get out the door. The best way to deal with tenditious editing is to clearly document it. (PS: Capriles did himself no favors there, as it is evident he was out of the loop.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy no tendentious editing took place, a statement by a senior opposition figure was included. There's no need for the hysteria. It is not evident in anyway that Capriles is out of the loop he has been a very senior opposition figure for many years now.Simon1811 (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon1811: I will repeat myself about Capriles again: "Quoting Capriles is interesting since he has lost a lot of confidence in the public after the 2013 elections and his promotion of participation in fraudulent elections and dialogues between government and opposition that have turned into negotiations.[12][13]" --Jamez42 (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand why you are bringing this up. Regardless Capriles comments are notable and should be included because if this.Simon1811 (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simon, first, please take care in accusing women on Wikipedia of "hysteria"-- that won't take you to good places :) Especially not with a woman who has been in more than one rodeo on Wikipeida for more than 10 years. Second, I was addressing a GENERAL need on this page for better talk page processes, since it takes forever to sort things on this page, and people don't include links. Third, Capriles is outta the loop. His statement, about his opinion, is appropriate on HIS article. That Gauido's action was QUITE well planned out with the support of national and international figures is quite evident. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is it inappropriate? As for your last sentence that neither contradicts Capriles statement nor is a valid reason to suppress his statement.Simon1811 (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with SandyGeorgia and Jamez42 here. Capriles has not been very relevent for awhile and has even distanced himself from the opposition by leaving the MUD. Seems to be out of the loop. Since the TSJ in exile was formed, a transitional government has been in the making. ----ZiaLater (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it seems like a bad statement. Include it if you want, it doesn't break neutrality to just quote him (as long as it's not in a section that would suggest Wikipedia believes it supports a side), but Capriles 'speaking for the opposition' isn't super significant. Especially when the opposition seems to disagree, which we'd have to add, which would make keeping neutrality and not breaking BLP harder. Kingsif (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting extremely biased[edit]

Someone is deleting countries that are clearly supporting Maduro on the grounds that they have not said “I support Maduro”

Antigua Barbuda is obviously supporting Maduro with statements like calling the crisis 'a brazen regime change' by the us, something that 'has no constitutional backing', and 'no support for international law'. The PM also called the CARICOM statement expressing concern 'timid' and believes that the group should have stated its position more forcefully. It is a support of Maduro.

Belarus: Nobody is going to invent a phone call with another leader. Imagine if he did it with France (you would get a statement saying it is untrue within minutes)… why doesn’t he do it with more influential countries such as India / Indonesia who have not released official statements? It is weird that you need Lukashenko to write an official statement when he has personally called the president of the country.

Équatorial Guinea: Point has been mentioned several times but apparently the RULING PARTY writing in the name of the president himself is not official enough? What? It is totally fine. Would you consider a statement made by the representative to the UN unofficial too since it is not the President/prime minister?

Serbia is not the strongest form of support but he has said that he does not intend to recognise Guaidó at any time

Laos: The representative of Laos met with the representative from Venezuela, there is a picture of them as well. Can’t see how it might not have happened since there is only word from Maduro’s side.

Uruguay and Mexico: Yes they are wanting to mediate but both have explicitly said they recognise Maduro which is what the info box and the map both claim to display

Hamas: which governs Gaza, has said that they recognise Maduro and should be added as well

Switzerland (on the map): is there because of a tweet from the Head of the Americas division of the MFA but the official word of the MFA (retweeted by this same person at a later time) is disregarded.

PDVSA: also apparently support Maduro

Sources:

Antigua/Barbuda: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/haiti/article225070430.html

Belarus:https://www.noticias24.com/venezuela/noticia/351009/nicolas-maduro-converso-con-lukashenko-y-recibio-todo-el-apoyo-de-bielorrusia/

Équatorial Guinea: https://www.pdge-guineaecuatorial.com/manifiesto-de-solidaridad-con-el-partido-socialista-unido-de-venezuela-y-su-gobierno-legitimo/

Serbia: https://www.agenzianova.com/a/0/2279943/2019-01-25/serbia-venezuela-vucic-paese-non-riconoscera-guaido-come-presidente-venezuelano

Laos: http://www.minci.gob.ve/viceministro-para-asia-medio-oriente-y-oceania-recibio-a-embajadora-designada-por-la-republica-popular-lao/

Mexico, Uruguay: https://m.perfil.com/noticias/internacional/paises-apoyan-nicolas-maduro-rusia-china-bolivia-cuba-siria-nicaragua-salvador-iran.phtml?rd=1

Hamas: http://www.trt.net.tr/francais/ameriques/2019/01/25/le-hamas-condamne-la-tentative-de-coup-d-etat-au-venezuela-1133207

Switzerland: https://twitter.com/swissmfa/status/1088761587790475265 (again this was retweeted by Bénédict de Cerjat)

PDVSA: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/24/reuters-america-guaido-vs-maduro-who-backs-venezuelas-two-presidents.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.5 (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you speak Spanish? As one example, The Laos source does not support the inclusion, and there is no reliable source that does. Receiving an ambassador is routine. Sorry I haven't looked at the other cases you mention; Laos is the only case of the ones you list that I am familiar with, because IMO the whole business of making these lists is a waste of time, as we will see in a week or so. Outcome really depends on Venezuela's military, not Laos or CARICOM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does? ‘La enviada del Gobierno de Laos comenzó el encuentro, que tuvo lugar en la Casa Amarilla, deseando mucho éxito al Presidente Nicolás Maduro Moros en su segundo mandato’ and ‘La Embajadora Kittirath aseguró que Laos veía esta relación como la de “dos hermanos socialistas”’. As to your second point, sure but that does not mean that information is not added on one side — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.5 (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts by adding four tildes after them. Note the date of the meeting, and the type of communication that would be routine for such a meeting. The text does not support what you suggest it does, and considering events were unfolding at the time of the meeting, intent cannot be discerned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean since the date says 24 January 2019, a day after the 23ene events. You can wait for a better source but I doubt you will get one for Laos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.5 (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a coordinated effort over at least the past year ensuring all articles related to the crisis in Venezuela remain completely biased and one-sided by anti-Chavez/Maduro editors, complete with scrubbing talk pages and archives. The failure of government policies as the sole cause is typically stated as absolute fact; the documented harm of US sanctions is not even mentioned. So don't expect anything different here, at least not any time soon. Completely pathetic that Wikipedia allows current event topics to become propaganda pieces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.229.186.1 (talk) 21:42, January 28, 2019 (UTC)

US sanctions have been levied on individuals and no harm can be attested on the country due to these targeted sanctions. In fact the US has kept the policy of allowing companies in the US to continue to do business with Venezuela's PDSVA until the sanctions on PDVSA of January 29th, 2019. Blaming non-existant sanctions for the economic debacle in Venezuela is clearly a pro-government tactic (i.e a propaganda piece) in itself.82.158.111.52 (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the king[edit]

sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.247.135 (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why no mention of troika of tyranny?[edit]

Why is there no mention about troika of tyranny? The article as it currently is makes it look like that USA has no part on what's happening now at Venezuela — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.49.96 (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, what edits do you suggest? Kingsif (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It could be placed into "See also" section. Jim7049 (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"See also" seems the best; John Bolton is a relevant figure in US foreign policy at this time so this neologism is notable here, but I don't see any reason to discuss it in the article. There's no rush to add it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done there is now a "See also" section linking to this article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Troika of tyranny quote[edit]

merged power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC) John Bolton recently explained the US's position on Venezuela:[reply]

Venezuela's one of the three countries I call the 'troika of tyranny'. It'll make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies really invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezeula. It'd be good for the people of Venezuela, it'd be good for the people of the United States.

Bolton, John R. (24 January 2019). Trish Regan Primetime - Thursday, January 24. Fox Business Network. Event occurs at 7:15.

I think this is useful to explain the US's efforts to free Venezuela from the tyranny of not being enslaved by the US. Can someone please incorporate this into the article? Thanks. 2601:644:1:B7CB:B50A:8F52:F09E:E13F (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to wikipedia's own entry on troika of tyranny: The phrase "troika of tyranny" was first used by United States National Security Advisor John R. Bolton during a speech on behalf of President Donald Trump at Miami Dade College on November 1, 2018 to describe the nations of Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. So the "troika of tyranny" concept clearly predates the current events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.13.46 (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laos and editwarring[edit]

Fenetrejones, in this edit, you have reinstated without discussion for the second time text that is sourced only to a Venezuelan government site. "It seems believable" is not among the reasons given at WP:RS for determining reliability of sources, and you are edit warring; please see WP:3RR and discuss your edits on talk. Do you have a third-party, independent reliable source for this information? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further, per this source of same; considering its date and that it seems to have been a routine meeting, which part of this text do you take as being in support of your addition of Laos? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Laos. No other sources showing support.----ZiaLater (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laos' stance is directly from the official web-page of the Ministry of Popular Power for Communication and Information of Venezuela. Please double check before edit warring. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Popular_Power_for_Communication_and_Information Nebakin (talk) 11:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tags removed without consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fenetrejones, please gain consensus on talk before removing maintenance tags. The sources do not verify the text, and they are not reliable sources for this text even if they did. The Venezuelan government can be a reliable source for statements about itself, not about other governments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continued edit warring[edit]

With this edit, maintenance tags are removed, and text that has no consensus and is not reliably sourced is re-instated, after more than three warnings. Correodelorinoco is just another government source-- not reliable to source statements about other governments. The Venezuelan government received an ambassador on the day of the protests; construing that to imply support one way or another is original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International protests...[edit]

There is a section for Pro-Maduro protests now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Why are only Pro-Guaido/Anti-Maduro protests covered and those Pro-Maduro/Anti-Guaido ignored in the article? The extreme bias is evident with selective implementation of information.

https://twitter.com/venanalysis/status/1089969569928826880

https://twitter.com/venanalysis/status/1089845509681045504

You forgot to put on Social Media sections Hand Off Venezuela... Emijrp please add it to it.

RBL2000 (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide WP:RS; I just deleted an entire section that had not one reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

"declares Guaidó president"[edit]

We now have two sections claiming this happened, one for events on January 13 and the second for events on January 23. How should we describe these? power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ongoing confusion (the same as the situation above in the OAS endorsement or not). In the first (11 Jan), the National Assembly said he was willing to assume the position (after it was clear in massive nationwide demonstrations and public assemblies that he had support). In the second (23 Jan), he did assume the position. So maybe, National Assembly declares Guaido willing to assume interim presidency or Guaido willing to step in or National Assembly president willing to step in or something along those lines (which are less POV than National Assembly declares Maduro presidency illegitimate, because that's what really happened, also with OAS Resolution after Maduro swearing in). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the second one to "Guaidó sworn in as interim president"; it seems accurate and has not been challenged. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus supports Maduro, wording and context matters.[edit]

Belarus is listed with multiple sources. Greece is not listed; while SYRIZA has made official statements the government has not. This is possibly because it conflicts with the European Union policy. There's a separate thread for that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Kingsif is intentionally taking advantage of so called neutrality to remove Belarus from list of countries that recognize Maduro as President of Venezuela.

https://eng.belta.by/president/view/lukashenko-calls-for-peaceful-settlement-in-venezuela-118231-2019/

> Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko and Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro have had a telephone conversation

https://www.noticias24.com/venezuela/noticia/351009/nicolas-maduro-converso-con-lukashenko-y-recibio-todo-el-apoyo-de-bielorrusia/

The context is clear, otherwise Belarus would not write "President Nicolas Maduro" and this backups what Maduro and Venezuelan government said yet people in here were saying not valid because it comes from them.

“We absolutely reject any external interference with the domestic affairs of a sovereign state, including efforts aimed at destabilization of the situation in the country,”

It is clear they're against interventionism and foreing powers meddling in Venezuelan politics. RBL2000 (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC) — RBL2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:AGF - I removed based on the fact it was already listed somewhere else with a more recent ref, if you insist on being pissed at someone, go find the person who originally added it as neutral. However, that statement (the one you directly quoted) says they do not support intervention. The UK has also said they do not support intervention. There is no statement from Belarus to say they support Maduro, therefore we will not claim that they support Maduro. Kingsif (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but you claim there is no statement yet you deny this reference and not only that by such assertion you deny the more recent reference which simply reports what was reported in reference you deny. You would have to deny and ignore that Maduro is called President and the so called neutrality you assert relies on mental gymnastics that throws logic and context out of window. This is not the same as United Kingdom who is not neutral as are neither other European countries that threaten to recognize Guaido thus interfere. That is not neutrality in any sense, it is interventionism which Belarus disaproves of. Maduro is President of Venezuela as stated in both references the more recent one and one you choose to sideline for that more recent one which is report of one you sideline. 77.217.233.160 (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you're a sock! Well, anyway, this long rant makes no sense, so I have no other witty response for you! Kingsif (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So let’s see. Lukashenko called Maduro, said that he could always count on Belarus for help, believes Venezuela to be a friendly state and decries foreign intervention (aka the intervention of the USA etc supporting Guaidó) but he is neutral? Russia, China, pretty much all the countries supporting Maduro are against foreign intervention. It does not make them neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.5 (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much all the countries supporting Guaidó are against foreign intervention, too. It also does not make them neutral. Do you know what would make them neutral? Saying they are non-interventionist and not giving any other statement. Like Belarus. Kingsif (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus/Greece[edit]

Some users are actively trying to promote a pro-Guaidó/anti-Maduro stance. In the cases of Belarus and Greece, they both need to be added to support of Maduro.

Imagine thinking that state-owned agencies are not a reliable source for the same state they work for. The Belarusian Telegraphic Agency has confirmed what Maduro tweeted that Lukashenko called Maduro assuring him of support. They 'reject any external interference with the domestic affairs' of the 'friendly country of Venezuela'. This is a staunch support for Maduro.

On a side note: pretty much every single country is calling for a peaceful settlement of the situation. They might have different desires as to the final outcome, but no only is actively wishing for war.

https://eng.belta.by/president/view/lukashenko-calls-for-peaceful-settlement-in-venezuela-118231-2019

For Greece, the Independent states, 'Now the Greek government of Alexis Tsipras is backing the Maduro dictatorship while other European-left prime ministers, like Spain’s Pedro Sanchez who knows the truth of the Maduro tyranny, are calling for new elections.'

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/venezuela-nicolas-maduro-us-sanctions-alexis-tsipras-greece-support-a8751771.html JoyceJonathan2 (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sighs* You seem reasonable, So:

Belarus. As you yourself say, "pretty much every single country is calling for a peaceful settlement of the situation", and yet they may support different people. Nobody is disputing what the source says. The source does not say Belarus gives support to Maduro, though, it simply says they do not support foreign intervention. As I explained above, countries like the UK are criticizing the US for their stance. And yet, they do not support Maduro. Non-interventionism is not automatic Maduro support.

Greece. The Independent isn't really that reliable, barely above WP:DAILYMAIL. You'd need a better source, especially because of the ambiguity in the sentence. Kingsif (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus 1: They confirm the phone call between Maduro and Lukashenko. Leaders would not call another leader they do not support.

Belarus 2: According to Maduro's twitter, Lukashenko voiced his support to Maduro. You might say that Maduro's twitter is biased, but BelTA writes, 'He assured that Venezuela can always count on Belarus for support.'

Belarus 3: It is referred to as "the friendly state of Venezuela" and "Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro"

Belarus 4: They reject outside interference in the country's domestic affairs, which is what every leader backing Maduro has said (and every neutral leader as well, which is probably where the confusion is coming from) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoyceJonathan2 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes they do. As a random example, Trump calling Maduro, North Korea? Yes, they do. 2. Maduro's twitter is definitely biased. Is BelTA quoting Maduro's tweet? 3. a.k.a. "we're really close to Russia and don't want to anger Putin". That suggestion is as CRYSTAL as assuming calling someone friendly means you support them running a country. 4. Nearly every Guaidó-supporting leader rejects intervention, for the hundredth time, being non-interventionist has no reflection on who you do or do not support. Kingsif (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Not during crises. And not when they are not a major player in the ordeal. And especially not voicing support

2. BelTA is not. My point was BelTA and Maduro have both issued statements that are concurring. There is no reason to believe doubt here.

3. That really shows your bias. There are better ways for Belarus to 'get close to Russia' than supporting a leader in a country where Belarus will likely have no future role to play. Armenia is also very close to Russia and has released a statement clearly indicating neutrality. The countries of Central Asia also largely depend on Russia and have not released statements at all.

4. No, by definition supporting another leader to the one elected, no matter what the situation, is intervening politically in the country's affairs

Greece: I think it is fine, since they are obviously pro-Guaidó, but is Business Times better? http://en.businesstimes.cn/articles/107088/20190129/russia-china-greece-supports-maduro-regime.htm Paris Match? https://www.parismatch.com/Actu/International/Au-Venezuela-Guaido-accentue-la-pression-sur-Maduro-1601796 The Globalist? https://www.theglobalist.com/venezuela-nicolas-maduro-alexis-tsipras/ Animal Politico? https://www.animalpolitico.com/2019/01/conflicto-venezuela-apoyo-maduro-guaido/ JoyceJonathan2 (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Are you a world leader? Didn't think so. You don't know these things.

2. I honestly don't know enough about BelTA to make a judgment on that.

3. I was literally saying that the suggestion in quotes was pure speculation, and as much speculation as what you said. How about you come back when you can understand?

4. It is not. Intervention is to say that they will do something, whereas many countries say they want for democratic discussions and also say that they have more faith in Guaidó to deliver that. They don't want to do anything or influence Venezuela. They would simply rather have Guaidó calling the shots until there is a more democratic situation.

Greece: Just because it's "obviously pro-Guaidó" doesn't make a source fine as a reference for pro-Maduro countries, especially since it's presenting it negatively and so could be just as biased in declaring an affiliation in order to ridicule that country. Of course, the Independent is not a reliable source and so we don't know where they're getting their information or if they're tailoring it to a bias or just saying something wrong. Of all those other links you give, most are using the exact same report and are also of little reliability. One is Chinese state, one is called "Animal"? Come on. Kingsif (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus 1: Just show me one example of a leader of one country calling another to express support during a crises but actually being neutral. It's an clear form of support.

Belarus 2: It is a state-run media. It is obviously reliable when talking about Belarus

Belarus 3: No need to resort to such inflammatory statements. If I did not understand, my apologies. But referring to Maduro as Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro during a presidential crisis definitely has weight.

Belarus 4: Exactly. According to the Venezuelan elections, no matter how unfair or corrupt, Maduro is president. When countries begin supporting another person as president, it becomes intervention. They are intervening in a country's affairs. It is not up to the US or the UK or Brazil or France to decide who calls the shots in Venezuela, which is a sovereign nation. So when they support a different leader, they are intervening politically.

Greece: So, apparently Chinese state media is biased (why, just because it's Chinese?), one is discarded based on its name (really?), disregarding the fact that they have won numerous awards for their journalism such as a Premio Ortega y Gasset, etc., and 2 others are simply discarded for being of little reliability.

I don't really get an impression that you will ever see the situation outside of the stance you seek to promote, so I will leave it at this. Every edit will be reversed for insubstantial reasons. At the end, the crisis will not be resolved on Wikipedia; have a good day! JoyceJonathan2 (talk) 05:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See, I see it the other way. You can check my track record, seeking NPOV - and that includes reliable sources. I don't have a stance to promote. What I see is that you won't see the situation outside of your stance, that you won't accept there is no actual statement from Belarus (as much as it is may very well support Maduro, adding up hints is not an official statement, we call that WP:SYNTHESIS) and that no reliable source has said anything on Greece. If the word on Greece was reliable, a better source would have reported it. That's the bottom line. I have no stance, I want good sources. You seem insistent to continue ignoring my explanations of why I can't accept them, instead claiming I'm agenda-pushing, when from my point of view it is you who refuses to accept Wikipedia practices to try and insert Maduro-bias. Maybe you're not doing that, but please don't say I'm blind to the situation, it doesn't help communication. (Yes, the crisis is not going to be solved on Wikipedia, yet many Maduro twitter trolls like to say Guaidó is entirely unsupportable just because Wikipedia will write that he is acknowledged. Don't people get a bit ridiculous?) Kingsif (talk) 06:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously Wikipedia, how many more sources do you need to accept the fact that Greece stands by Nicolas Maduro? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.13.46 (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable ones that don't just copy the same text from each other. Controversial topic = rock solid references. Kingsif (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus[edit]

According to Belarusian, Russian, Kazakh, and Ukrainian media, he is supporting Maduro (and before you say all of them are biased, we cannot just discount entire countries based on their governments)

Belarus

Belsat "Беларусь, фактычна, прызналася ў тым, што стала на бок Мадура."

https://belsat.eu/news/lukashenka-parazmaulyau-z-madura-pa-telefone/

BelaPAN (need subscription to see the full article, but the headline states "Lukashenka expresses support to Nicolas Maduro")

https://en.belapan.by/news/politics/?page=2&filterby=month&startdate=2019-01-01&chunksize=15

Russia

Lenta "Лукашенко встал на сторону Мадуро"

https://lenta.ru/news/2019/01/26/lukash_maduro/

Izvestia "Лукашенко лично заявил Мадуро о своей поддержке"

https://iz.ru/838437/2019-01-26/lukashenko-lichno-zaiavil-maduro-o-svoei-podderzhke

Gazeta "Президент Белоруссии Александр Лукашенко заявил о своей поддержке венесуэльского президента Николаса Мадуро."

https://www.gazeta.ru/politics/news/2019/01/25/n_12562537.shtml

Interfax "Лукашенко выразил поддержку президенту Венесуэлы Мадуро"

https://www.interfax.ru/world/647794

InfoReactor "Отмечается, что Лукашенко заявил Мадуро, что Венесуэла всегда может рассчитывать на белорусскую поддержку...."

https://inforeactor.ru/207848-lukashenko-po-telefonu-podderzhal-prezidenta-venesuely-maduro?utm_source=yxnews&utm_medium=desktop

Kazakhstan

Tengri News "Лукашенко заявил, что поддерживает Мадуро"

https://tengrinews.kz/sng/lukashenko-zayavil-chto-podderjivaet-maduro-362083/

Ukraine

Новое Время "Лукашенко поддержал Мадуро"

https://nv.ua/world/countries/lukashenko-podderzhal-maduro-50003246.html

KP "Глава государства заявил о поддержке президента страны Николаса Мадуро и добавил, что выступает против любого внешнего вмешательства в дела суверенного государства." "Президент Беларусе лично позвонил своему венесуэльскому коллеге и выразил свое сопереживание."

https://kp.ua/politics/629303-lukashenko-podderzhal-nykolasa-maduro

103.70.152.5 (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Election "widely disputed"[edit]

It should be clarified that the election was "widely disputed" by the United States and its allies, not by the free countries of the world. 2601:644:1:B7CB:7845:7B76:A134:441B (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we may eliminate the "widely", but disputed just means that already some and not all argue against it. --MaoGo (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already changed that yesterday, replacing "widely disputed" by "disputed by opposition and some countries". But I was reverted[14]. emijrp (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Disputed" means controversial - it should not be described as "disputed by x and y" unless x and y are the only groups with opinions. And your phrasing also deliberately downplayed ("some countries") as well as made it sound negative by isolating "by opposition" and juxtaposing it with "some" - just qualifying who is disputing, if you say it is small, does carry negative connotations. And since you were incorrectly using the term "disputed", why would we allow such misinformation? It was widely disputed - lots and lots of countries gave an opinions. Kingsif (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only one who is misinformating here is you. I corrected several sentences in the lead to write it in a more neutral style, because before that this article looked like a eco-chamber of pro-opposition media. The elections were disputed by the same bodies who called for its boycott. But that isn't Foreign electoral intervention, right? That only happens to USA :) If you are so good at NPOV, why don't you add the opinion of Maduro's government about this crisis to the lead? They say this crisis is a coup backed by USA. If it is so clear that elections were widely disputed why the meetings in OAS and United Nations didn't reach a consensus? emijrp (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one, the fact fact that they didn't reach a consensus kind of shows that the elections were disputed. I think the solution is probably in between the two opinions; instead of putting "widely" or putting "some," just put that "it has been disputed" or something along the lines. The more qualifiers that are left out, the better. I do agree that there may be a slight NPOV problem with the article, but I certainly would not describe someone who uses quotes like "eco-chamber of pro-opposition media" very neutral, either. Please stay calm and actually point out what is wrong with his argument instead of making baseless or uncited insults. Integral Python ^{click here to argue with me} 16:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emijrp please refrain from personalizing disagreements; the sources backing the content are available, and your post undermines your position. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cited,[15] and disagree with the OP. It is unsightly to overload a lead with citations, so here are a few more from ProQuest:

Venezuela election 2019: Will Maduro BE MADE to call election or face 'FULL WEIGHT' of US? Laud, Georgina. Express (Online); London (UK) [London (UK)]28 Jan 2019. "The United States vowed to starve Maduro's administration of oil revenue after he was sworn in on January 10 for a second term that was widely dubbed illegitimate."
LatAm media: Venezuela election widely repudiated as 'sham'. BBC Monitoring Americas; London [London]21 May 2018. "Venezuela's main opposition parties boycotted the elections, saying they were not free and fair, and many foreign governments, including the US, the European Union (EU) and a significant number of Latn American states also announced they did not view the election as legitimate."
VENEZUELA - Venezuela: Military group arrested after calling for President Maduro's removal. France 24, English ed.; Paris Paris: SyndiGate Media Inc. (Jan 21, 2019) "Protesters burned trash and a car outside the National Guard outpost where the officers were arrested in a sign of growing tensions following Maduro's inauguration to a second term that governments around the world have called illegitimate."

I could go on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason not to say "widely disputed"; "disputed by opposition and some countries" is a weasel-y way of saying the exact same thing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Section On Goals of Guaidó[edit]

Since before the lock I wrote a bit on the constitutional basis of the interim government, citing this [16] authored by Guaidó himself, under "Basis of the Challenge". I missed adding a few key points, on what Guaidó and the National Assembly want. I think the Roadmap provided by the opposition is a quite clear indication of what they expressly want. Its listed quite clearly from this source:

"Our road map is clear: stop the usurpation with national unity and through external and internal pressure; form a transitional government to open channels for humanitarian assistance; restore the rule of law and the separation of powers; and call for free elections so all Venezuelans can decide their future." -Juan Guaidó

I don't have a wikipedia account, if another user can make this edit I would welcome it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.101.67 (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Individual policies by and from the Guaidó administration are not a good fit for this page, which is already quite large. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are the specific roadmaps and aims of the interim government though, these are not specific policy goals as they are the underlying reason for the interim government declaration. 174.113.101.67 (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this isn't the place for this content. Perhaps Juan Guaidó or Plan País would be a better location. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing cleanup needed[edit]

Seriously, Mexico's position sourced to urdupoint.com ??? What other messes are to be revealed in the sourcing of this article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Almagro holds neutral countries responsible for massacre[edit]

I would like to work this in, but can't figure out where: he points out that while neutral countries do not take on a stand on serious human rights violations, they are furthering a massacre.CNN 30 Jan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’d say under “governments” > “Supernational” similar to the United Nations. Bohbye (talk) 07:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I meant European Union and Lima Group Bohbye (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RASD[edit]

Please add the RASD under non-UN states

https://www.spsrasd.info/news/fr/articles/2018/08/06/16752.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.5 (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done a while ago - this is the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

European Parliament[edit]

The European Parliament has recgonized Guaidó as interim president. However, member states of the EU have not recognized either as president yet. The European Parliament is urging member states to follow suit. [Source]

For those concerned about the map, none of the European countries have recognized a president yet and only have issued a joint declration showing support for the National Assembly. ----ZiaLater (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Simon1811 blocked as a sock; Jamez42 is now more familiar with how 3RR works. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

@Simon1811 and @Jamez42: You've both violated WP:3RR by this point. Either you stop edit warring and discuss your issues on this talk page or I'll have no choice but to bring you both to WP:ANEW. Impru20^talk 14:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Impru20: I've been aware of WP:3RR, but I didn't know it was violated at this point. I've stopped changing the disputed content, given the arguments of my edits above and left a message in Simon1811's talk page. Please let me know if there are any self reverts that should be done. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamez42: Any revert of any content within the article in the same 24-hour period counts with respect to 3RR (even if it is not shown as a revert proper in the edit summary). For you, it would be these at least: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. For Simon1811, it would be these at least: [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]. I may have missed some as there is a lot of intermediate edits. Impru20^talk 14:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Impru20: I've confused for quite some time now that 3RR is about same content. They are a lot, I would like to formally apologize. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamez42 is not being very cooperative so its difficult.Simon1811 (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon1811: did you really just say that? That kind of attitude, the kind of "someone disagreed which made it difficult for me to preserve my version" is the kind of "excuse" that gets people banned. If you think he's being uncooperative, start a discussion. Justifying an edit war because someone made keeping your preferred wording on the page "difficult" is the opposite of a good reason. It's not difficult to not edit war because of someone reverting your edit, you just don't edit war (ruling out vandals) and talk about it. If someone reverts your edit and you disagree, you should open a discussion and ping them - without undoing their revert! Jamez has said he understood the 3RR as same content, do you have the same reasoning? Or anything better than, effectively, "I didn't like it"? Kingsif (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO both need to take a chill pill for 24 hours Bohbye (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, the info above about a 24-hour period is incorrect; slow edit warring is also edit warring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not incorrect. Obviously, that may also count as edit warring but it is not the situation here, where there have been 8-10 reverts within the same 24-hour period. Impru20^talk 20:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockblocked SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The European Union parliament just announced they recognize Guiado[edit]

How should this be marked in the map, since not all EU countries themselves have recognized him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.10.241.96 (talk) 18:46, January 31, 2019 (UTC)

please read the section on Italy, two above this one. You will see that the European Parliament is listed under countries that recognize Guaido. ZiaLater will update individual countries on the map as their positions emerge. (You can sign your posts by adding four tildes (~) after them). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

CLOSED

Per WP:SNOW, I am closing this discussion. Consensus is against moving the article as of this moment in time. This discussion should be reopened at a later date if at all. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 00:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

The article 2019 Venezuelan protests is about the protests against and for Maduro in the context of the presidential crisis. I don't think they warrant an article on their own, they should be merged here. Cambalachero (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with the proposal. As I explained in the In the News nomination, each article as importance and notoriety on its own. There are protests that have also started spontaneously and have not been summoned by the opposition, mostly in barrios and poor areas, which have resulted in the majority of the deaths during the crisis. I fear that merging the articles would cause the focus in the violence and human right abuses to be lost. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has the entire notion of how to use Wikilinks, and keep articles tightly focused, been completely lost in Venezuelan articles? (Which are all too large and quite unreadable, but I digress.) So, the protests are MASSIVELY (cited) in support of Gauido, and we already have people complaining that the article is unbalanced because they want the four people who came out in support of Maduro on 23 January to be equally represented. So, merging protests here will exacerbate that problem, and dilute the focus here on who is going to be president. And make for another overly large, hard to clean up, unreadable, unlikely to be maintained, Venezuelan article. And Cambalachero, the article is on the main page; tagging it for a relatively unimportant matter is unsightly. Could you not wait until it is off the main page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have 2017 Venezuelan protests and 2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis as separate pages. Why? When Venezuela protests, it protests hard, not every one in 2017 was a direct product of the actors in the crisis. Not every protest in 2019 is, either. It would be plain inaccurate to merge them. Kingsif (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"When Venezuela protests, it protests hard" - I think that summed it up pretty well = ) _{Integral Python}^{click here to argue with me} 22:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Against this proposal, per comments by SandyGeorgia. Also to notice that in every year of the crisis there has been protests (like in 2018 for example), but this kind of protests haven't received attention outside human rights organizations and local newspapers. --Oscar_. (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Reason for not being allowed to participate[edit]

Sock, blocked

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Re this edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockblocked SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ZiaLater: If wikipedia is to mention that certain opposition parties were not allowed to participate then wikipedia should state why they were not allowed for neutrality, balance and context. Ignoring why they were banned would be like ignoring why Guaido felt the need to challenge Maduro claim to the presidency. In other words it ignores important context.Simon1811 (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But then you have to be very careful with the sourcing, and study the full issue, because in Venezuela, one is often charged with things that never happened. You have to work hard to balance that sort of text, seeking the highest quality sources. Because they weren't banned for the reasons the government claimed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: The justification for the ban can be given without stating whether or not the justification reflects reality and the accusations of the Bolivarian government are true.Simon1811 (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you want to introduce POV text :) That another editor will have to correct. Which will waste time and make people mad :) It is so much easier on everyone to get it right the first time. So-and-so was charged with such-and-such by person X; Media outlet Y said the charge was <fill in the blanks>. There is practically no such thing as a legitimate arrest or legal charge in Venezuela, and you don't want to come across looking like a tenditious editor by adding unbalanced text. Back in the days when the media ignored Venezuela, the task was Herculean; now they are all writing about Venezuela, so really, you can find the sources to balance the text and get it right from the start. If you are not sure what search terms to use, you can start with Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Do you speak Spanish? Please see this article.Simon1811 (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I speak Spanish; what do you want me to look for and what do you want to add? But remember, journalists in Venezuela are constrained. Whatever you want to take from that article, I will try to balance it from a very high quality source that is able to say more without freedom of press issues. Because of the situation in Venezuela, I often add one Spanish citation and one English citation (not something I would have to do in less controversial areas). I'm not trying to be obtuse about what your edit is, but I'm juggling about eight different things at the moment, so if you always provide a diff to the edit you are dealing with, it's much easier on everyone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well the source states because the political parties in question boycotted the mayoral elections they had to register again other wise they would not be able to participate. The parties failed to do so and thus could not participate. So something along the lines of "X was banned from participation due to failing to register again after boycotting the mayoral elections"Simon1811 (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon1811: Nothing in Venezuela's electoral law (Ley Orgánica de Procesos Electorales) prohibits political parties to participate in these conditions. This was a decree created by a body that has no constitutional rights to legislate about elections, let alone that its legitimacy has been widely questioned. Even in that case, due weight and neutrality must be respected. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamez42: Whether you agree or not the Constituent Assembly is the body that overseas this stuff. I dont see why it would not be included as it is the reason they could not participate. Why would you want to exclude a decree that explains why they could not participate?Simon1811 (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon1811: No, it isn't. Are you sure about that? It is the National Electoral Council (Consejo Nacional Electoral/CNE). --Jamez42 (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamez42: My apologies, I misspoke. I meant the National Electoral Council. Regardless I believe my point still stands.Simon1811 (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon1811: It doesn't. The decree was approved by the Constituent Assembly, whose only constitutional function should be writing a new constitution, and the article never mentions the CNE. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They make up the rules as they go :) Simon, you really have to seek out higher quality sources, that are able to tell the full story. That was a concocted reason. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: El Nacional is a top venezuelan newspaper which hates maduro and is considered the last independent newspaper in venezuela (see wikipedia article of newspaper in question).Simon1811 (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we may agree on some of that and disagree on some of it, but at any rate, that reinforces my reasoning to seek out multiple high quality sources, and tell the full story, if you want your edits to stick. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: What "full story" do you think is missing that is not accounted for in the source I provided?Simon1811 (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, lots of wasted time here. I went and looked for the edit in question myself, and posted it at the top of this thread. If you would reference the edit you are questioning, along with your sources, we could all use our time more productively. If I really have to do this myself, I am going to grumble ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose restoring per WP:UNDUE and reasons discussed above. Pinging @ZiaLater:. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you want to say the opposition was banned because they boycotted the previous elections. No such bullroar in Venezuelan election law. The bogusness of that claim is in the first sentence of your source. The Constituent Assembly-- which was not legally elected and is not the CNE-- made up a new rule after the fact so they could eliminate all opposition. So, then you go find a high quality source that explains all of that. Welcome to Venezuela. El Nacional isn't going to spell that out because a) they don't want their children kidnapped or to end up in jail, and b) because everyone in their market (Venezuela) already knows that. It's called "moving the goalposts". The un-elected ANC decided to ban them for a completely arbitrary, made-up reason, and really, going in to that is beyond the scope of this article. The text you need is in the first sentence: the ANC came up with a new rule, and the ANC is not even the electoral oversight body. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamez42: @SandyGeorgia: This Spanish article explains why the were banned. Would you two have any objections to using this as a source to base any proposed insertion? Hopefully then we can work from there.Simon1811 (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at that next. You don't need to ping me :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason behind the ban is purely political, the CNE (controlled by the government) and the TSJ (also controlled by the government) devised a plan for it since 'at least' 2012. If you have the time I recommend this essay (in Spanish) by Eugenio Martinez, a longstanding journalist of elections in Venezuela. To say that they were banned merely by the boicott (a consecuence of an unfair process to begin with) is to follow the government propaganda. --Oscar_. (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oscar .: Any such edit would simply detail the stated reason for the banning as opposed to saying the Boliviarian government's claims are accurate.Simon1811 (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon1811: Again, oppose. I don't know about Sandy's thoughts, but I see that the problem is not the sourcing, but rather the edit per se because of the reasons I explained. Zia's edit summary sums it up very good: "The fact here is that they were banned from participating. Adding more clumsy wording is not productive." Moreover, the article also explains why the reasons boycotted the election. Why don't we add them? Bringing the topic of the boycott would bring all these questions that are already covered in the article of the elections. In other words, this is the article of the presidential crisis; explaining that there were questioned elections, without entering in detail of the reasons, should be the the adequate description. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, I prefer not use ElPatilla for sourcing anything serious. I know such sources are throughout these articles, but they shouldn't be, and they needn't be, because WP:NONENG-- almost everything is covered in English now. Second, again, the problem is found in the first sentence: "Ante la inhabilitación de la plataforma Mesa de la Unidad Democrática (MUD), ... " which is the same as saying, "After the Constituent Assembly moved the goal posts ... ". That's the starting point for that article. And the other parties which the ANC claimed were eligible were not going to leave their brothers behind for an invalid reason, knowing the elections would be fraudulent no matter what, so everyone boycotted. Further on, you find, their made-up reason: "La renovación de estas organizaciones política fue producto de un decreto dictado por la Asamblea Nacional Constituyente (ANC) debido a que estos grupos políticos rehusaron participar en las elecciones regionales del 10 de diciembre." No such thing in Venezuelan law. I will tell you again, you can find a full discussion of that in high quality, English-language sources. You could say, the Maduro administration said the opposition was banned because ... (cited to source above); the New York Times said (fill in the blank) ... give the full, NPOV text, and no one will remove your edit. But if you put up only one side of the story (and the sources plainly state what story they are telling-- in Venezuela, they cannot do otherwise or they will lose their license), I will support the removal of the content. Crank up your search engine and go for it! You have now .. four or five? ... people saying the same thing. You gotta do the work; the edit is not going to stick unless it is balanced, and LaPatilla and ElNacional-- while very useful for sourcing some kinds of text-- are not going to give you the detail on this one, because they have to think about having their reporters detained and tortured. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What side of the story is missing though? You keep saying things like that but I do not understand what missing part of the story you are referring to.Simon1811 (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it is more simple to just say that the opposition parties were banned. That is not the only ban that occurred during the 2018 presidential election. You have to remember that multiple popular opposition leaders such as Capriles, Lopez and others were banned from participation. Meanwhile, Maduro supported Lula's presidential campaign after he was charged and jailed, believing that he should still be able to run for president. Strange. I am neutral on this though, the reasoning behind the ban could be attributed to the Maduro government, but in a separate sentence (ex: The Maduro government banned the opposition after they did not participate in the Constituent Assembly elections). But then again, you would have to explain why the opposition did not participate (ex. The opposition did not participate because they recognized the Constituent Assembly as a coup). So, it might be more simple to just call a ban a ban.----ZiaLater (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockblocked SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[POLITICO-1] Hanke, Jakob; von der Burchard, Hans (24 January 2019). "Brussels caught off-guard by Venezuela's political turmoil". POLITICO. Retrieved 26 January 2019.

[The_Tribune-2] "The Latest". The Tribune. 24 January 2019. Retrieved 24 January 2019.

[CPH_Post-3] W, Christian (24 January 2019). "International News in Brief: Denmark backs Venezuelan opposition in wake of coup attempt – The Post". CPH Post. Retrieved 26 January 2019.

[The_Irish_Times-4] Long, Gideon (24 January 2019). "Maduro wins backing of Venezuelan senior military figures". The Irish Times. Retrieved 26 January 2019.

[Africa_Times-5] "So far, African leaders are silent as world weighs in on Venezuela". Africa Times. 24 January 2019. Retrieved 26 January 2019.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]