Open main menu

Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis


China meets with other partiesEdit

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

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

China's neutralityEdit

An editor in the Spanish Wikipedia offered an article that mentions that China has now taken a more neutral stance in the crisis.[1] --Jamez42 (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

There are English, and Chinese sources for this as well. I put it in a different article. It does require a bit of reading between the lines however: A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman came out and said that China was willing to work with whomever, and was in talks with both sides, when asked if China supports Maduro a government spokesman responded that his inauguration was attended by China, also a Chinese/Hong Konger news paper, The South China Morning Post, (wholly owned by Ali Baba; important because Ali Baba won't tolerate political controversy see Southern Weekend) posted an article about Guaidó and how he wanted to work with China. These do show a much more neutral stance, than what was originally had, but it's hard to add to wiki. I'll list some of the articles for you though: Alcibiades979 (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I found a great article on this so I went ahead and added a bit: Alcibiades979 (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
@Alcibiades979: Thank you very much for adding the info. Just today I listened to an interview explaining that China cancelled a long term project with PDVSA owrth billions of dollars due to its unability to pay, but I haven't had time to check, so I wanted to leave the note here. Best wishes! --Jamez42 (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

China did not meet with oppositionEdit

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

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

Other Sources: Nebakin (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Two sources state different facts, as per Wiki:NPOV_Due_and_undue_weight, both should be included, which is what I've done. I specifically cited the Wall Street Journal in the article as stating that meetings have taken place, then added that the Chinese Foreign Ministry has denied that it took place, giving weight to both sources as per wiki policy. Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Rewording have been completed and this version gives a more complete story while still remaining brief and representing both sources equally, both in quantity and quality. Nebakin (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
China denied having meetings with Guaidó over Chinese investments, however if you read she never mentions that no meetings have taken place, and Geng Shuang another spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry has stated that China has been in touch with representatives from Guaidó: "A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, Geng Shuang, said on Friday that China’s deals with Venezuela should not be affected “no matter how circumstances change”. When asked at a press conference if Beijing had contacted Guaido, Geng said China has been in touch with “all sides” in different ways." Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
As stated above:
"Q:[...] Secondly, reports say that China has been holding talks with Venezuelan political opposition to safeguard its investment in the country. Can you confirm?"
"A:[...] On your second question, I believe the reports you cited were made by the Wall Street Journal. I want to point out that some media has been churning out false information lately. I wonder why it has been acting like this. We hope that it could make media coverage in an objective and unbiased way. As for the Venezuelan issue, China believes that a political solution should be sought out through dialogue and consultation."
I believe your article is also already half a month old, moreover it is clearly stated that all parties are kept in touch in different ways, this does not contradict anything from the press conference from yesterday (13th feb), having no meetings (as clearly evident by the statement from yesterday) doesn't mean not being in touch at all, even a single phone call is also considered keeping in touch. As mentioned, all parties are kept in touch in different ways. There is no contradiction at all since the term "been in touch" is so broad in definition and does not restrict it to meetings/talks only. Nebakin (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
"On your first question, in recent days, in order to promote the peaceful settlement of the Venezuelan issue, China has been in close contact and communication with all parties." Secondly, reports say that China has been holding talks with Venezuelan political opposition //to safeguard its investment in the country.// Channel News: "BEIJING: China said on Wednesday (Feb 13) a newspaper report that Chinese diplomats had held talks with Venezuela's political opposition to protect its investments in the Latin American country was "fake news"." SCMP: "China has dismissed a newspaper report that its diplomats held talks with the political opposition in Venezuela to protect its investments in the Latin American country as “fake news”." Global Times: "The Chinese foreign ministry on Wednesday refuted foreign media reports which claimed that China has been holding talks with Venezuela's political opposition to safeguard its investments, and called the reports "false."" etc. Anyhow I really need to get back to work. Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The part about the meeting for investment have already been mentioned in the first half of the sentence, no point repeating it. Nebakin (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
It is necessary, these two sentences state two different things. This one states that according to Hua Chunying China has never meet with Guaido's representatives to discuss Chinese investments: "however Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Hua Chunying denied any meetings with the Venezuelan opposition to discuss Chinese investments when asked about WSJ's claims in a press conference, stating that it is "false information"." This one states that China has never had meetings with Venezuela period, which is not supported by the references: "however Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Hua Chunying denied any meetings with the Venezuelan opposition when asked about WSJ's claims in a press conference, stating that it is "false information"." Do you see the difference? If in your mind there's no difference, then humour me, I've written all of China's and Russia's sections, and supplied all the references. Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
There is no difference, there is only a difference because you are taking it out of context by only quoting the second part, quote the whole thing then tell me there is a difference. So what if you written all of it? It's not your property to claim someone is edit warring when you unhappy about it not fitting your narrative. Also, save your warning for yourself, I am officially warning you as well for edit warring, you are the who REFUSES to settle it in here before making all those edits. Nebakin (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Article sizeEdit

@Kingsif, Power~enwiki, and Jamez42:

We are quickly approaching 200,000 bytes so we might have to cut down on a few things.

Some recommendations are:

Any other recommendations are welcome.----ZiaLater (talk) 08:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I have another suggestion that will address both above: we should start a separate article, Reaction and response to 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, and move BOTH Reactions and Response sections there, which includes protest information. The map work on this page is a distraction from writing the rest of the article. Just summarize those two sections tightly here, using WP:SS as done at Guaido, so that we can focus on writing this article, without a gazillion posts and edits about the map and protests. That will leave this article more focused and a more readable and maintainable size. Once the initial kerfuffle of who supports whom is settled, there will still be a "crisis" to be dealt with (elections, transfer of power, threats and intimidation and on and on). The time spent on responding to reaction and response posts is frustrating, when there is so much relevant writing still to be done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
A lot of the bloat is the list of every country's position. I'm not sure we can move that off this page, though. Beyond that, it's hard to say what should be done - if the situation continues for months the "Events" section will need to be split off and summarized here. The "Censorship" section could possibly be moved to a (renamed) Block of Wikipedia in Venezuela page as well. And there is more on "protests" here than in the protest article. I'll re-evaluate next Wednesday, hopefully I'll have a clear idea of what should be done. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd oppose splitting the "Events" section, which is perhaps not well named, because it is the heart and narrative of the article (maybe should not have been set up initially as proseline). The map and stuff about each country is basically a List, that is much more easily summarized to here; who supports or not will eventually become irrelevant, as Maduro either departs or does not, and the relevant story is told here, as the main article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
We certainly can't split the events section now. But if this continues through April or May, there will be too many events to cover all of them in detail in one article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
While I think that by April, with some distance, we will be able to trim much of the verbosity here, and have a nice article. As an example, the section on Military defections suffers from PROSELINE and NOTNEWS issues: we should resist the temptation to list every defection, and we should be able to trim this section considerably. Lists are the most logical to split. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I did a ton of trimming (redundancies, verbosity, unnecessary detail, and the like). As of 0200 UTC 8 Feb, the "readable prose size" per WP:SIZE and WP:SIZERULE is now at a manageable 38kB (5885 words). The article itself is a good readable size, and still has room to grow. What is chunking up the overall size is the map and the lists. I still suggest that once things stabilize, the entire Reaction and recognition sections can be split to a List, and summarized to here with WP:Summary style (which needs to be better employed in every Venezuelan article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


I did more trimming and tightening. As of this version, readable prose is 6,900 words and readable prose size is 45KB. WP:SIZERULE recommends thinking about splitting when size is 50KB. If we create Reaction and response to 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, and summarize that text back to here including the map, readable prose drops by 6KB, to 39.

One problem is the absence of appropriate use of summary style, where text has been forced into this article by merge discussions (eg Guaidochallenge) when the stand-alone article wae notable and could have helped avoid bloat here (eg Venezuela Aid Live, which is an appropriate use of summary style here). Another problem is text that would be a better fit in Guaido's Bio has been forced here by non-policy-based deletions from that bio.

In another week or so, we may be looking at how to deal with size here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

New updateEdit

The bullet points in the Reactions section were keeping the prose size script from accurately measuring the word count. Relative to WP:SIZERULE, the 23:40 18 February version has: 52 kB (8147 words) "readable prose size" SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Pro-Maduro protest?Edit RBL2000 (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC) RBL2000 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I think that is an adequate source and content could be included, as long as it is balanced (ie, both sides). Perhaps you would suggest content here on talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 ? By making a section here on talk I am suggesting it since I can't edit this wiki article. RBL2000 (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC) RBL2000 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Ah, I see ... sorry :) I am out of time today, but I hope someone will get to this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
RBL2000, you have a small tag in your sig that is making everything that comes after it small ... I removed, but can you change your sig? [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Troll Jamez42 keeps putting that tag. RBL2000 (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC) RBL2000 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
RBL2000, you may want to remove the inappropriate personalization. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Pro-Maduro/Anti-US interventionism protest in ArgentineEdit RBL2000 (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC) RBL2000 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There is already enough of this on both sides within the article.----ZiaLater (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

  Not done --Jamez42 (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

500 people is no big deal. Macri, head of state of Argentina, is pro-Guaido, and that's what matters here. Even Cristina Kirchner, leader of the opposition and former close ally of Chavez and Maduro, has stayed silent during this crisis and avoided to publicly support him. Cambalachero (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

We are running in to (and the article currently has) a problem of WP:FALSEBALANCE with the protests section. We present the pro-Maduro and pro-National Assembly equally, when they are not. Where tens of thousands show up against Maduro, hundreds show up for Maduro. We also have not explained the coercion factor (forced to show up for Maduro or lose their job or CLAP box). We need to reduce the pro-Maduro text to eliminate false balance. Again, I suggest a summary, where pro-Maduro gets a sentence. FALSEBALANCE is from a policy page (NPOV), and compliance with policy is not a matter of liking it or not-- we must. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I have commented the section while this is solved. The section was added while there were problems with sockpuppet accounts and edit warring, so the discussion should be retaken in order to improve the issues. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

You can silence the pro-Maduro protest section, like mass media is silencing the millions of people signing against US intervention[3], but the truth will surface and prevail at some point :) emijrp (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Your statement would carry validity on Wikipedia if there were, in fact, millions, when there may be hundreds at most. And biased Blumenthal is not going to ask how many of those people he saw were forced to show up, or lose their job or CLAP box. FALSEBALANCE is not only a Wikipedia policy: it is a foundation of good journalism. No one is silencing millions of people, because there is no instance of millions of people, or even hundreds of thousands of people, clamoring for chavismo. In fact, there was not even in the heyday of chavism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I hope you apply same standard when people clamor for Guaido/have anti-Maduro protests in Venezuela. [1] RBL2000 (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC) RBL2000 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
@RBL2000: [4] --Jamez42 (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Emijrp WP:NOTAFORUM --Jamez42 (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not see why we should have multiple sentences listing international protests on both sides since they do not seem very notable. International protests are held constantly. What I feel would be more suitable is a simple sentence or two explaining that demonstrations happened on both sides.----ZiaLater (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

It's likely the time to retake this discussion. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I think that the section should be removed entirely. It is just a tiny single sentence of two lines section, I'm sure that the manual of style discourages that somewhere. Cambalachero (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I merged the stubby section to the overall section, but we still have a WP:FALSEBALANCE (there were massive demonstrations in support of Guaido in Spain and Argentina, for example and many more, and small demonstrations in favor of Maduro in some places). I believe we should leave the sentence, but correct the false balance with sources. International demonstrations occurred on both sides, with some gatherings supporting Guaidó,[365][366][367][368] while others supported Maduro.[369][370][371] Our sentence incorrectly makes it appear that the demonstrations in support of Maduro were equal to those in support of Guaido, and that is not the case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
    False balance addressed (with intervening Ossetia edit). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

POV wording in lead, "pro-Maduro"Edit

SandyGeorgia, your claim that "TSJ was appointed outside of constitutional processes" is original research. The Supreme Tribunal of Justice (Venezuela) article does not say anything about that, and also I could not find any mentions of that by reading a few news articles. Notrium (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I suspect you don't fully understand the term original research on Wikipedia. The fact is well and easily cited-- keep reading this article, where you will find voluminous footnotes and sources, right in this section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@Notrium: There was a discussion about this in Maduro's talk page, I'll link it here because it's a good read. Longs story short, the new tribunal was apointed with lots of irregularities and its justices do not meet the requirements for holding office. Not to mention that all of them subordinated to the questioned Constituent Assembly. --Jamez42 (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  Not done --Jamez42 (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Current imageEdit

Looks quite bad to be honest. Any better edits? I’m not an expert so I’m asking you Bohbye (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

yes, Guaido looks like a clown. But we have no better free image :( :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Article image looks as it if has been vandalizedEdit

Hello, I'm concerned with Guaido's picture, it looks as if it were a collage. Maybe Maduro's thugs are prowling around trying to undermine him by vandalizing every single page of his? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  Done --Jamez42 (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  Not done This is an active problem. The article is still in need of a better image; the one there makes Guaido look like a clown. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Other imagesEdit

Please can we quickly update with one of the other images of Guaidó seated? The current really looks like the exaggerated lips used for blackface, which is not something that should be on the page. Kingsif (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't speak images-- cannot help :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I tried to update to an equally not-great, but less offensive and actually-looks-like-him version; ZiaLater reverted. I've messaged over at Commons. Kingsif (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Patience ... we will get an image. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


From Italian parliament Twitter account Theasiancowboy (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken this is   Done --Jamez42 (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

You should use the official line of the government (and not the opinion of a parliamentary of the League. If so, you should quote also Manlio di Stefano, who supports the Italian neutrality). What the Italian foreign minister have said is: new elections, while the P.M. Conte has said at the European Parliament: neither Maduro nor Guaido. Italy is neutral and doesn't support Guaido.
( (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC))
Ho hum. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Greece and Italy should be neutralEdit

Statement by the EU was not individually ratified by countries to recognize the National Assemly, even if it did both countries have made statements supportive of the Maduro side as well. They should be placed in neutral. Greek Prime Minister stated that they support Maduro[5], and Italy vetoed EU bid to recognize Guadio[6]. Greece and Italy should be marked in grey for speaking supportive of both sides. Jim7049 (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

By this logic, China should be marked as neutral as well. Greek Prime Minister made no statements on Venezuela, but their party did. Italy is in a similar party divide about its opinion on Venezuela.----ZiaLater (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no way they could change their mind. They have decided that Italy supports the National Assembly and so it is. I think that there are two possibilities: 1) Recognizing the EU as an unique body, colouring all the countries in light blue. 2) Considering the different countries: the ones that support Guaido in dark blue and the neutral ones in grey.

Instead,they have opted for a confusing (and unreliable) mix. ( (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC))

Remember WP:NOTAFORUM. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049:, just making sure you noticed that I merged all three Greece sections to one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: OK. Jim7049 (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: Took it to bottom cause no one sees it as new when it's up there. Jim7049 (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The Italian caseEdit

It's ridiculous that the source for the "Italian recognition of Guaido" is a tweet of an exponent of The League who have expressed his idea, while the official note of the Government, the speech of the foreign minister and the P.M. saying that Italy is neutral, and the fact that Italy has blocked with its veto the EU resolution on the recognition of Guaido have not been considered.

The usual answer received was: the situation is confusing and we cannot put Italy between the neutral countries. Now, for a parliamentary's tweet (that have exposed his idea and not the Government's line), you have changed it. So strange! You should be more careful about the choice of your sources. ( (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)) (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hasn't this been covered above? The Italian parliament already passed a law recognizing Guaidó. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
That was a tweet by a parliamentary of the League (that supports Guaido) in which he have expressed his idea - also to satisfy his voters - writing "hence". But in the text voted by the Italian Parliament (the one above the "hence" in the Picchi's tweet) there is no recognition to Guaido, but the request of new elections. All the proposals to recognize Guaido or to condamn Maduro have been rejected by the Italian parliament. You can read this source:
( (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC))
It's more complicated than that. After Feb 12 Parliament law, there is now two contradictory interpretation of recognition of Guaido from the Italian goevernment. Picchi is not just a random MP, he's the Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs, one of the two, and the one from Lega side. Thus he has full power to issue official endorsement unless the Cabinet level intervene, which has choose not to do. It is best reflected in that Italy now has two self-dueling interpretation of recognition of Guaido. Foreign Minister Milanesi has not issue any rebuttal yet. See (in italian): So it is complicated but not that easy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeifengYang (talkcontribs) 20:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC) --WeifengYang (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
You said well: one of the two. The other one is Manlio di Stefano, who many times said that Italy is and remains neutral. Obviously nobody quoted him, because he is not the official voice (as Picchi isn't) of the Government.
It is more simple than you can imagine: is in the law the name of Guaido and his recognition? The answer is: no. It is not a case that some parlamentaries of the Opposition have blamed the Government to act as Pontius Pilatus.
In the tweet of Picchi the word "hence" expresses his opinion. But a Wikipedia source should quote the facts and not a Parliamentary's opinion.
Here the official text voted by the Parliament:
"Italy supports (...) new presidential elections, that must be free and credible, in conformity with the constitutional order."
The original text in Italian, here:
( (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

So the map changed but not the position of Italy in the article? Also, can we group all Italy discussions? --MaoGo (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I have tried to group the discussions, to avoid confusion and have everything on one topic in one place-- the last time I did, it was reverted. Perhaps if you try? Italy, and same problem with Greece. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I just merged, at least two of the sections. --MaoGo (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
And there's another Italy section above, grouped with Greece. Thanks MaoGo! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I think You might change the current source (that doesn't report the official position of the Italian Government on the crisis) with this one:

"Italy’s fractious populist leaders finally reached an agreement after quarreling about the Venezuelan crisis, calling for new presidential elections but still stopping short of recognizing National Assembly leader Juan Guaido as interim president."

( (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC))

Bloomberg is behind a paywall-- could you help us out by quoting more of it, or do you have any other similar source? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Is the Washington Post ok? "Italy’s populist government is calling for elections soon in Venezuela but is stopping short of joining its European Union allies in recognizing opposition leader Juan Guaido as interim president."

( (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC))

Thanks, IP93; I adjusted Italy here, but I defer to @ZiaLater: who is following each country more closely than I am. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Italy clear upEdit

Can someone make something out of the Italian stand? It keeps shiftaing on this page. (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Read below the new section called "Unnecessary new category"-- that may help you understand where we ended up. We have tried to keep Italy in one place on this page, but said effort has been futile ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary new categoryEdit

Please discuss. [7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Too much overlap. If we make a category for the countries that call for new elections we would have to duplicate countries because it is not clear which prevails, the support for any of Maduro/AN/Guaidó or the call for elections. --MaoGo (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
1) Sorry, I didn't intend to duplicate Italy into 2 categories. Also I didn't realize this Talk section had been created, so sorry about that too. I also accidentally pressed publish instead of Preview by mistake on my first edit before I had put in an edit description, so sorry about that.
2) When I re-entered the change - a new category 'Support for new presidential election' (with a further mod, removing the erroneous Spanish near Tweet), my edit description was:
This is explicitly supported by 2 Italy citations (and others are available if needed) and not contradicted by the 3rd (I've removed a 4th clearly erroneous Spanish little-more-than Tweet); there are seemingly no citations for Italy supporting the National Assembly (and its presence there for weeks has basically been illegal OR of the WP:SYNTH variety); other states may or may not also belong in this new category.
3) There is no need to duplicate countries. But we should NOT put countries into wrong categories using illegal Original Research just because it seems convenient (even tho I have probably been as guilty of this as others). If you are worried that will produce too many categories, then I suggest a single new 'Other positions' category, with text explaining the position of each country in it.
4) Otherwise I shall probably just have to flag Italy with Citation Needed (and an explanation about OR and SYNTH in its reason parameter) and OR flags; indeed I may well feel I have to do so anyway if the matter is not resolved here reasonably speedily, as our readers are entitled to know when this sort of thing is happening.
5) Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Tlhslobus, we should be able to resolve this with discussion; @ZiaLater: is the editor who has most closely followed all of the sourcing on that section, so we may hear from them. It is my impression (I could be mistaken) that support for the National Assembly was accorded in the earlier EU vote, and that citation may need to be added for Italy, but Zia may correct me. It is additionally my concern that we discuss whether we have the correct title on that section heading. My third concern is that the heading you propose will result in overlap. As an example, the Vatican supports elections, but is decidedly neutral on the Maduro/Guaido issue, so we need to carefully consider before creating overlapping section headings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. What you mention about the EU is precisely what was WP:SYNTH - there were seemingly no reliable sources saying Italy supported the National Assembly, but we claimed such support on the basis of our thoroughly dubious interpretation of an Italian vote for a complex EU motion (based on a EU official's interpretation of what that motion meant, and not a statement from the Italian government), an interpretation of the Italian position which was doubtful enough at the time, and which has since been superseded by a more explicit Italian position that seemingly doesn't mention support of the National Assembly (or at least none of our sources say it does) but does mention something completely different, namely support for new presidential elections. Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks ! But no, what I am saying is that Zia knows the sources better, and she may have a source that has not been provided here, relative to the EU position on support of National Assembly. I really don't know myself, as this whole thing is moving so fast that it is hard to follow every aspect. We need to take our time to hear from those who know all the sources on any particular area of this fast-moving situation, to get this right before we add another section, which will bring additional issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, it's not that fast moving. The current Italian position was 6 days ago. And we shouldn't have to wait for alleged experts to fix what appears to be OR when Google tells us it appears to be. If we can't correct an apparently erroneous piece of OR because putting in something correct might eventually lead to other problems and because some alleged expert just might eventually turn up with a source that says something seemingly not mentioned in all the other sources, Wikipedia would seem to be in deep trouble. Incidentally, while I have still found no source saying Italy supports the National Assembly, here is a major Italian source (albeit perhaps a tendentious one, tho I think La Stampa would normally be regarded as a reliable source) seemingly at least implying that Guaido himself was saying that Italy does NOT recognize the National Assembly:
To all this is added the open "Letter to the Italian people" written and made known by Guaidó, in which he does not hesitate to point out that "59 countries and the European Parliament have recognized the National Assembly", while Italy "is one of the few that has not yet recognized this path".
Tlhslobus (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
If you are impatient, I suggest you place a disputed tag on that one (Italy) entry while we resolve this. Creating a new section, that causes overlap, results in a mess for several other entries (eg Vatican example above), and we need to discuss not Italy per se, but the naming of each section, relative to sources. I did not say the Italy issue was fast-moving, rather the whole Maduro/Guiado matter is, and I for one am not able to keep track of every source. We KNOW that Italy does not recognize Guaido, that is not what is in question here. In question is what to call the section that Italy is placed in. And the person who knows best the souces about every other country in those sections is @ZiaLater:. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, no need, I've now found a reliable source that does support our article's position, so I'm now going to add that and we can close this discussion. Sorry for taking up your time, and thanks for your very useful contributions. Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much Tlhslobus; I knew we could get to the bottom of this with dialogue :) [8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Namibia and other Southern African countries support Maduro.Edit

The statement of support for Southern African Development Community was done by none other than President of Namibia Hage Geingob who also speak in the name of SADC due to him also being the chairman of it.[1] Its Southern African Development Community#Member states should be included for support of Maduro unless there is explicit neutrality as with Angola. RBL2000 (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC) RBL2000 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Look at the edit summary for the SADC...----ZiaLater (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  Done --Jamez42 (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@RBL2000: is this addressed to your satisfaction (so that this section can be archived? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
No, not even close when facts are blatantly ignored. [2][3][4][5][6] RBL2000 (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC) RBL2000 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
@RBL2000:, all of those sources pertain to SADC, which has already been included in the article. What is it that you are proposing? WP:AGF is a real thing; people are trying, but your posting habits don't make it easy!

Would you mind adding the reflist-talk template below your posts when you add inline citations? It is tiring to have to do the formatting work for all of your posts. Notice please just above this post, how I have added the reflist template; whenever you add refs to a talk page post, you need that below your post for them to show. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Since SADC is added to the list supporting Maduro, then shouldn't all of it's member states be listed as such and be updated on the map too? Nebakin (talk) 10:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Nebakin the Lima Group supports Guiado; should we put Mexico on his list? Same logic. Individual countries may differ from position taken by groups they participate in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussed in a new section below, so suggest this old section can be archived. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Myanmar and NamibiaEdit

TASS is not a reliable source; I have removed these for discussion and better sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  1.   Myanmar[1]
  2.   Namibia[2]
Also, these sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Why? Because it is Russian? Since when something being from Russia is invalid for Wikipedia? RBL2000 (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC) RBL2000 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
No, not because it's Russian; because Wikipedia has standards and guidelines for reliable sources. You can see them at WP:RS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Fenetrejones: could you please engage the talk page rather than continuing to insert text that is not based on reliable sources, and communicating your reasoning only via edit summary. Specifically, what does this edit summary ("have not been revealed yet") mean?

Myanmar and Namibia are officially part of the “counter US” alliance that supports Maduro, others Include St Vincent, Cuba, Bolivia, Suriname, Russia, Palestine, Iran, Syria, North Korea and China The rest of the members have not been revealed yet.

Do you have access to information that is not publicly available? Wikipedia relies on published sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Moving to talk again for discussion and sourcing:

  1.   Myanmar[3]
  2.   Namibia[4]

Fenetrejones, please discuss your edits on talk. There is nothing on the source's website that addresses reliability, the statement seems to be based on Arreaza's statement, and we should have a stronger source for this kind of content, not a marginal source asking us to take Arreaza's word for it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

First of all, I never made up the whole Anti USA Coalition thin. That is stated in many sources ( here are just a few:[5][6][7]) so the coalition is mentioned in reliable sources. In the context for Myanmar and Namibia, the source states "On the other hand, work will be initiated in different instances to defend the principles of the UN Charter such as non-interference and respect for the independence of nations, this with the support of countries such as Russia, China, Cuba, Iran, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Palestine, Syria, Namibia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname and Myanmar." This passage is not a quote from Jorge Arreaza, so we don't have to take Jorge's words to heart. Here is where he made the speech [8] this is an official United Nations website btw. Both the permanent represnative of Myanmar [9] and the permanent representative of Namibia [10] can be seen accompanying Jorge to his speech. The sources that I cited, it mentions are the delegates who joined Jorge on his joint declaration at The United Nations.Fenetrejones (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Fenetrejones (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for providing the sources-- most helpful (I did not say you made it up, but I did ask that you provide sources!) I am a bit uncomfortable basing an edit on a statement of who we can see accompanying Arreaza in a video, but we can see what others say. I also think we can be confident that, if these two countries are part of this "coalition", that will eventually be printed in a reliable source-- there is no hurry. Nodal does not even have an "About" page that I can find-- are you able to locate anything on their website that speaks to reliability? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I can not find how reliable they are, but a positive for its credibility is that it is not a Venezuelan, Cuban, or Russian owned website.On top of it the source, just rounds out what is mentioned in other sources because the other sources do mention China, Iran, Russia, Palestine, and North Korea like here [11][12].Fenetrejones (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)User:Fenetrejones (Talk) 23:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again ... got it now ... and now that I understand what the situation is, I will be looking for a reliable source for your addition of these two countries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


Seeing how there are multiple other sections using fox news (x1), nytimes (x7) and WaPo (x2) as sources, I think it is safe to call it reliable proof/source. But of course more is welcomed. Nebakin (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Fenetrejones, for the sixth time, you have again added this content without using a reliable sources, [9] although this has been explained to you over and over.

  1. 19:45 Feb 15
  2. 20:12 Feb 15
  3. 21:08 Feb 15
  4. 23:54 Feb 15
  5. 22:22 Feb 17
  6. 17:25 Feb 20

Patience exhausted, AN3 next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

What does AN3 mean? Ok fine, I removed them. The group does exist as I showed.Fenetrejones (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC) ' (Talk) 17:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I have already filed the AN3 report;[10] the time of other editors that you are consuming needs to stop. Now that I have seen this, I will add a note that you self-reverted, but IMO, the time you have taken away from other editors should be dealt with firmly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


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

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

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

@Goodposts: "Art. 105. (1) The Council of Ministers shall direct and conduct State's domestic and foreign policy". The president must follow the advice of the Council of Ministers. Placing two positions in the article is not recommended. Let's settle this on the talk page first. ----ZiaLater (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@ZiaLater: I agree on settling this trough finding a consensus, rather than creating an edit war. The Bulgarian Council of Ministers is the one that creates foreign policy, but, as the nation's official representative in foreign affairs, the President is allowed to represent the country's position trough his statements. The Bulgarian constitution does not state what should happen in cases where the two bodies are in conflict, and only the country's Constitutional Court could resolve that issue. I think that it is fair that both positions be shown prominently, so that the reader can have a better understanding of the the Bulgarian leaders think of the situation. Moreover, the situation in Bulgaria is very divided. While the governing party supports Guaido, it's coalition partner, the United Patriots coalition openly support Maduro [1], with the Volya party, on which the government relies on for confidence & supply, also openly supporting Maduro[2], a position that is also supported by the opposition Socialist Party[3] and it's splinter group ABV and various other more minor parties. This means that it would be impossible for the governing party, which has formed a minority government, to ever pass a parliamentary resolution in support of Guaido (which the Bulgarian President has the right to veto anyway). In fact, it's far more likely, given the stated positions of Bulgaria's parliamentary factions, that a resolution supporting Maduro, rather than Guaido, could pass. Hence, the current position can be accurately summed up as a conflict between the Council of Ministers (tasked with formulating foreign policy) and the Presidency (given the right to represent Bulgaria in international relations), with neither side currently enjoying parliamentary backing. The Bulgarian President is not obliged by the Constitution of Bulgaria to follow the foreign policy papers laid out by the Council of Ministers, as the Council of Ministers is not allowed to create legislation. That task is entrusted entirely to the National Assembly of Bulgaria. Without such legislation, the President is free to oppose the Council of Ministers' statements in his official capacity, which is considered an act belonging to the nation as a whole. This is the reason I argue for showing both sides of the argument with equal prominence in the interests of fairness. Best regards. Goodposts (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Goodposts (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
@Goodposts: I think the note you made was fine for the reader to check. The official stance of the Bulgarian government is one recongizing Maduro, giving it more weight. The president disagrees and that can be included in the note that you placed.----ZiaLater (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@ZiaLater: Very well, I can agree on just the note. However, this creates a problem for the visual depiction of the map, as no notes can be attatched to the image. I think the map should follow precedent set by other Wikipedia articles, such as and introduce a checkered visualisation for nations in which there is an institutional conflict and support is divided between the two sides. I am willing to accept the position of the Council of Ministers as the 'primary' color and position, and the President as the 'secondary' or 'conflict' position. I belive this to be an acceptible compromise that represents both sides in the fairest way possible. I think it may be important, as the United States has accused a Bulgarian citizen of 'laundering venezuelan money' trough a Bulgarian bank [4], prompting government action which was subsequently also harshly critisiced by the Bulgarian President [5], whom also vetoed several ambassadorial candidacies, hence the topic of Bulgaria may become more relevant in the coming days.
PS. I find it curious that the Bulgarian government appears to be having an institutional clash not all that dissimilar to the one we are discussing in the article at hand. Best regards. Goodposts (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Goodposts (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

@SandyGeorgia: I am fine with the current nature of the note, but have not received a reply about the map. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: Color will stay blue in the map.----ZiaLater (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@ZiaLater: You can't just make arbitary decisions like that, not based on consensus, especially when precedent set by other articles listing similar conflicts is exactly the opposite. Your profile states that you're "willing to work with anyone", but so far it appears that you've done little, but re-state your hardline position and refuse to even discuss the possibility of changes, even when I've agreed to make major changes in my own position to accomodate yours. I have given you many different well-sourced reasons as to why this is not the best approach. You only reply with "the color will stay the same". Follow your own motto and work with me. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

 Abkhazia and  South OssetiaEdit

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

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

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

It says states, not countries. And the two of them got caught up in the wonderful USSR dissolution mess and want to be their own states. Abkhazia is doing pretty well getting there. South Ossetia has a good argument in that North Ossetia does exist and is in a different country as a state. Both have their own governance independent of either Georgia or Russia. (And, y'know, a territory of a country is much different to a state. There's been a fight over where the Crimea goes, and on the map it's separate to Russia and Ukraine.) Kingsif (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
By the logic we have used on other countries, I don't think they belong here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

United NationsEdit

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

"The secretary general of the United Nations, António Guterres, has offered to help mediate the political crisis in Venezuela. But as far as the United Nations is concerned, Mr. Maduro’s government is still the legitimate representative of Venezuela.
"While Mr. Guaidó has named his own ambassador to the United States, he has not taken steps aimed at unseating the Venezuelan Mission to the United Nations. Diplomats have said such a change would require a vote of the 193-member General Assembly that Mr. Guaidó’s side would most likely lose".Burrobert (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@Burrobert: Yes, but is their an official United Nations opinion? I seem to have been corrected because I cannot find a declaration, statement, etc. Other have argued that due to the secretary general's political background, they are sympathetic towards Maduro. I do not know if the secretary general speaks for the entirety of the UN.----ZiaLater (talk) 06:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think there has been any resolution about this dispute from the Security Council or the General Assembly. There was a Security Council meeting in late January, but it was seriously divided and did not pass any substantial resolutions. Maduro's foreign minister took part in that meeting, and not even the US tried to have him excluded. Anyway, the UN continues to host a Venezuelan Mission loyal to Maduro, a situation which Guaido and his allies seem powerless to change.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Kalidasa 777: I may try to create a note about this regarding sources saying that the United Nations still recognizes Maduro. This is a good explanation.----ZiaLater (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Could use more eyes at Ilhan OmarEdit

The section of the Ilhan Omar article related to the crisis in Venezuela needs some more eyes. Thanks.Adoring nanny (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Adoring nanny, it sure does, but I for one am not going there, because her article is protected by Israel/Palestine ArbCom sanctions because of her alleged anti-Semitic views, and you make one edit the left doesn't like, you get blocked. Her pro-Maduro, RT/Telesur supporting positions are not well addressed in her article, and I'm not touching it. Warning to other editors. Have fun with that. I suggest that if you want to correct her article to reflect her position on Venezuela, that you go to the correct ArbCom page and get clarification on whether edits about her Venezuela position are exempt from Arab/Israeli ArbCom sanctions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Only the portion related to Venezuela is so protected. I actually was specifically warned because I was editing the Arab-Israeli section and didn't realize about the sanctions. The person warning me said I should stop editing the Arab-Israeli part, so I did. But he didn't complain about the fact that I was also editing the Venezuela part. I assume he noticed and was fine with it. So I think that question has been answered.Adoring nanny (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Adoring nanny Not going there with anything short of clarification from the arbs themselves, and not willing to even ask those questions myself, knowing how touchy that situation is. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Adoring nanny Any changes that should be made? --Jamez42 (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
That article has a one-revert restriction in place per arb enforcement; if Adorning nanny answers that question, she could be blocked for recruiting. You can google and read what Ilhan Omar has been saying, and what is and is not in the article. Please let's not bring the Arab-Israeli arb sanctions to this article :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Venezuelans that she represents in Minnesota aren't very happy with her views: Star Tribune, letter to editor SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

"Guaidó sworn in as interim president"Edit

I'm wondering if this section headline sounds correct, to me "sworn in" implies some official process while Guaido declared himself president. Thoughts? BeŻet (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Adusted, [11]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Red Cross POVEdit

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

  • International Red Cross has declined to participate in the Washington’s humanitarian aid plan to Venezuela after raising concerns about the aid being "instrumentalized for political ends".[1] Similarly, United Nations has warned against politicizing humanitarian aid in Venezuela.[2]

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

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

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

Also, please try to read the entire article, so that your text is added to the section that is already discussing the topic, here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
There are reputable sources expressing the concerns of Red Cross representatives about the politicization of US AID to Venezuelea: ICRC director of global operations Dominik Stillhart: “We are not kind of an implementing agency for any donor, specifically not to implement things that have a political tone[3]. I think this should be reinstated in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:b07:5d2a:6749:38b0:d89a:2ab4:b59b (talkcontribs) 13:59, February 21, 2019 (UTC)
The interesting thing about these POV edits is that they generally want to insert that the political tone is coming from one side only, without mention of the issue of politicizing aid by refusing to let it in. Please propose balanced text that you would like to add, based on reliable sources. Also, if you would sign your posts, by entering four tildes after them, it would help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm new to editing Wikipedia, especially having discussions on talk pages, I'm trying the four tildes thing in this comment now. Also, I'm not really sure what's the correct way to propose an edit in situations like this, I will have to look into this. For the time beign I'm just going to type it here. I would expand the sentence: "It also said its ability to work in the current environment in Venezuela was limited" with "and that it would not take part in operations that have a political tone". The source is the AssociatedPress article that I just linked above. 2001:B07:5D2A:6749:38B0:D89A:2AB4:B59B (talk) 09:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Don't worry about formatting, 2001:B07; your sig worked, and your post is properly formatted, which is way better than we often see from new users-- it's a steep learning curve.

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

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


  1. ^ Paul Dobson (11 February 2019). "Red Cross, UN Slam 'Politicised' USAID Humanitarian Assistance to Venezuela". Venezuelanalysis.
  2. ^ "U.N. warns against politicizing humanitarian aid in Venezuela". Reuters. 6 February 2019.
  3. ^ Missing or empty |title= (help)
off topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is ironic SandyGeorgia how you distort thus lie about by claiming it represents the government of Venezuela which is inaccurate and misleading narrative that government of the United States of America is parroting, do we say that BBC, VOA, NHK and what not represent positions of governments of their respective countries? Same when you claim/assert for sources you deem unreliable along with basically saying in essence that information being reported by several sources doesn't matter because you deem are not reliable and would only say they're reliable if reported by what you deem reliable yet you're going to say what Wikipedia deems reliable despite many sources you say aren't reliable have been used on Wikipedia and were not labeled unreliable sources even if those sources are not common which does not give you right to label them on your own judgment as unreliable in blatant manner to pretend neutrality when demonstrating with your reasoning and bias to make this article not neutral by fact of sourcing used and narrative that is being pushed when effort has been made over and over again to check for sourcing involving pro-Maduro content such as support of his government. This happened for example with Belarus, Serbia, Laos and North Korea yet haven't seen much if any about pro-Guaido except Italy and Greece with former being forced by several users as recognizing Guaido.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RBL2000 (talkcontribs) 20:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Don't any of you people reading this go with "This is not a Forum" when this is talk section and thus forum, we're discusing involving this article and sources that are being used so do not abuse Wikipedia rules by distorting meaning thus lying by intention as it happened several times involving sourcing. RBL2000 (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC) RBL2000 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Here's comment from head of International Committee of the Red Cross in Colombia who's POV is that aid from the US is not humanitarian.[1] Do not use excuse about language being Spanish, google translation from Spanish to English is nearly 1:1, context is untouched. RBL2000 (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC) RBL2000 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
That source is no different than the ones I link to, quoting Harnish. (You might have noticed, while personalizing your comments to me, that I was the one to correct the Italy and several other issues.) Propose text based on reliable sources, and it will be included. (The Red Cross by the way is already included.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Good, neutral infoEdit

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

Foreign vs humanitarian aidEdit

Why are there two sections seemingly covering the same topic - Humanitarian aid and Foreign aid? Admittedly foreign aid could be used for non-humanitarian purposes such as military purchases but the items under Foreign aid all seem to relate to humanitarian aid.Burrobert (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it is because there has been attempt to have a timeline of events, and the humanitarian aid entry is a big issue in that timeline, while the foreign aid section is more focused on the controversy. I hate WP:PROSELINE, find it utterly dreadful to read sentence after sentence that starts with a date, rather than grouping related content together, but trying to get rid of it is futile. I had changed the "Entry of humanitarian aid" to just "Humanitarian aid" when I was hoping to lower the proseline in the article, but if we are going to separate controversies, I will now change that back. Hope that helps, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes that's fine thanks.Burrobert (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


Japan seems not to have fully recognized Guaidó, at least according to this piece (in Spanish). --Oscar_. (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

If I am reading this right, El Pitazo isn't the highest quality source, and I would be more inclined to believe Japan over what Maduro's ambassador to Japan claims about Japan's position. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
El Pitazo is a good source, the problem that I see here is that the article is quoting directly Maduro's ambassador on Japan's position. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Agree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree as well. Should not take the word of a party invovled in the crisis.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like Japan knew what they were talking about. They recognize Guaidó.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit requestEdit

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

Secondly, Ukraine did the same recognition as Morocco. The Wikipedia source, from the Ukranian MFA, says: "Ukraine recognizes Juan Guadio as the head of the single democratically elected Venezuelan government - the National Assembly..." (source:

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

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

And undone; please discuss. I find nothing in the source that supports this change; please point it out. We also need a better understanding of the reliability of this source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Stop playing games, you have read it and context is clear involving Marocco:"Foreign Minister Nasser Bourita held a phone conversation, on Tuesday, with Juan Guaido, President of the National Assembly of Venezuela, at the request of the latter, said the Ministry of Foreign Affairs."[1] and this is directly from website managed by Morrocan government so I doubt you actually checked the source. RBL2000 (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Similar for Ukraine unless you want to claim Ukrainian Independent Information Agency is unreliable source.[2] ""Ukraine recognizes Juan Guaido as head of Venezuela's democratically elected government, the National Assembly, and leader of the democratic opposition," Press Secretary of Ukraine's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Kateryna Zelenko has said in a statement."" RBL2000 (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
And reverted again, without consensus by RBL2000. RBL, would you please add reflist to your posts, as I have explained several times on this page?

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

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

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

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

OK, I get it. So it is fine to remove sources without discussion yet it is not fine add them back after being removed without discussion and for that matter census. Please explain yourself with valid reason and not double standards that are hypocritical. RBL2000 (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps someone else can help you understand what has been explained many times, over many weeks, to you on this page. I am approaching the point of seeking admin attention for WP:SPA WP:NOTHERE and WP:TEND. I have tried my best to explain Wikipedia policies and guidelines to you, so perhaps someone else will be more successful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps you should explain how is morally and ethically valid to remove a sources based on your opinion about the quality of the source while also not seeking discussion thus not seeking concensus if it should be removed yet when it is restored then you seek discussion and concensus which is double standards. It is fine when it is removed yet it is not fine when it is added back because there was no discussion should it or should it not be removed. These are fact you can not deny and claiming WP:SPA is jump to conclussion by you and others that you desire. RBL2000 (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not for righting great wrongs that you perceive; text is based on reliable sources. Did you look at the information about FAIR that I linked to you above, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources? FAIR is not a reliable source. You want to change text based on other sources that have not been discussed, and you edit warred to instate that. I am encouraged that you are indenting your posts correctly now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for proving me the list to see what is or isn't considered to be reliable sources by users of Wikipedia though I need to point out you labeled TASS as unreliable source when it isn't labeled as such and for that matter in fact it isn't on the list thus your reason for removal which is unreliable/not reliable source is invalid. I encourage you to discuss removal of sources and reach concensus about removal than removing it without such. RBL2000 (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

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

If? Seems you haven't checked the sources. They describe him as such, they do as per content in sources. RBL2000 (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
REQUEST (insist): There is a difference between recognition of Guaidó as President (inter) of Venezuela (Executive branch) and Presidente of the National Assembly (Legislative branch). When a country recognizes him as Presidente of Venezuela, it means that anyone, except him, can be The Presidente of Venezuela. On the other hand, when a country recognizes the National Assembly and Guaidó as its Presidente/leader, it doesn't explicitly mean that a country recognizes Guaido as Presidente of Venezuela, according to the Venezuelan constitution. I used the OFFICAL sources because of both, Morocco and Ukraine, had not recognized formally and explicitly to Guaidó as President (inter) of Venezuela, only as Presidente/leader of National Assembly. If you have any doubt, you can ask their MFA. Lavelletta (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC).

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

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

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

Morocco, Switzerland and UkraineEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


The statement of Head of the Americas Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland says: "#Venezuela #Switzerland considers the National Assembly als legitimate as a result of the democratic elections of 2015, as well as its newly elected president # JuanGuaidó. Their freedoms and powers must be respected and their security guaranteed. @EDA_DFAE." When he says "newly elected president", he's talking about the President of the National Assembly of Venezuela not of the Presidente (inter) of Venezuela. Switzerland had been removed from this section before. ( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavelletta (talkcontribs) 14:41, February 21, 2019 UTC (UTC) Lavelletta (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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


The statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine says: "Ukraine recognizes Juan Guadio as the head of the single democratically elected Venezuelan government - the National Assembly [...]" As before, this is a recognition of the Presidente of the National Assembly, not as Presidente (inter) of Venezuela. (

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

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

Ukraine recognizes Juan Guaidó as the head of the single democratically elected Venezuelan government is a recognition of Guaidó as leader of Venezuela. At best (I do not think so), the sentence is ambiguous and another source has to be found to clear this up. --MaoGo (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I just made these six edits to try to get this post in the right place, correctly formatted, add unsigned templates, and to remove the small tag that was whacking out the rest of the talk page. I have not attempted to address the concerns, out of time, will leave that to others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


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

Move Ukraine and Morocco from Support Guaido to Support National Assembly as he said time and time again, I don't see how his simple request backed by sources is hard to understand for you not to get what he wants to be done when he repeated this over and over again. Does he have to repeat it yet again? RBL2000 (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
This is what is meant by the warning to stop soapboxing. I welcome anyone to read the walls of text above and try to extract sources and content suggesitons; I have spent so much time trying to keep the posts in order that I have been unable to decipher. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

México recognizes Maduro's presidencyEdit

Mexico's government issued the following statement "Mexico will not participate in the non-recognition of the government of a country with which it maintains diplomatic relations." Implicitly supports Nicolas Maduro's government.

Taken from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico: "Mexico Following Its Constitutional Principles; Supports United Nations Appeal on Venezuela"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Darielwiki (talkcontribs) 04:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not think that what it's written goes against their neutral position. --MaoGo (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Especially not when the press release was issued on January 23-- a month ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

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

The source for ALBA's support for Maduro have already clearly stated that "Our countries only recognize as representatives of Venezuela, in the multilateral and bilateral spheres, the diplomatic officials appointed by the Executive Power of Venezuela, which is headed by its President Nicolás Maduro Moros, and we will not recognize the presence within the multilateral organizations of representation of any product of the violation of current Venezuelan legal regulations by a supposed parallel government." -

Thus this naturally includes Antigua, Grenada as well as Saint Lucia which was not included. Neither of the sources placing Antigua and Grenada under the "Neutral" banner has any explicit quotes about the countries being neutral, in fact in the source for Antigua ( it is very explicitly mentioned "Browne, who said his administration will not support Guaido, warned that the unfolding situation in Caracas could cause serious problems for the Caribbean." This plus the ALBA statement makes it 100% clear that Antigua supports Maduro. As for Grenada's source ( it does not even remotely mention any shred of clear evidence that Grenada is neutral.

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

Nebakin not sure what time zone you're in, but in the Americas (where the crisis is located), it is the middle of the night. Announcing an hour deadline to change something in the middle of the night does not seem very collegial. There is no deadline. I have tried to avoid following this map closely (in fact, I wish it were not part of this page, as it detracts from writing the article), so I generally do not have a strong opinion on every country (unless I see faulty sourcing), and I suggest that you give other editors time to weigh in. I do not agree that an overall position taken by a group of which a state may be a member overrides what individual member states say. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I have things to do also, and it's 7pm for me. So if there is no preliminary valid objections, I am going to edit first. Simple as that. We all have our own personal lives, so giving a deadline for the first editing is very reasonable. If someone finds better evidence to disprove it, they are free to discuss it here and we reach some agreement. Also, while you may not agree that "an overall position taken by a group of which a state may be a member overrides what individual member states say", it has been very clearly quoted in the statement from ALBA that "Our countries only recognize as representatives of Venezuela, in the multilateral and bilateral spheres, the diplomatic officials appointed by the Executive Power of Venezuela, which is headed by its President Nicolás Maduro Moros, and we will not recognize the presence within the multilateral organizations of representation of any product of the violation of current Venezuelan legal regulations by a supposed parallel government.". There is no other interpretation for this statement. "Our countries" is a very,very clear indication that the individual members agree with this statement. Nebakin (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
They are speaking for the group; individual countries may override. If you edit an individual country based on the ALBA statement, and override a statement from that country, it is likely you a) have no consensus and b) will be reverted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Nebakin do you have a source explicitly stating, for example, that Antigua supports Maduro? I have just searched and do not find one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I do, but I'm very sure it won't be readily accept it since "it's biased" just because it's from an OFFICIAL ministry of the Venezuelan government.
For Antigua
For St. Lucia
Besides that the Venezuelan government cannot speak for other countries, there has already been a case where it lied (the African Union). Do you have a source stating that Antigua, for example, supports Maduro that is reliable for that content? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I will give my two cents and provide this chart of the OAS vote declaring the illegitimacy of Maduro. Both Antigua and Grenada abstained, like half of the ALBA members. Just like with the SADC, the Lima Group and the European Union, each country has an individual stance. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Jamesz42's information gives a pretty good reason that there is not a case for changing the stance of these countries. Nebakin, you must provide a source reliable for the content you want to add. Unless you have one, I do not agree with your proposed change.

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

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

SandyGeorgia I can also argue that those nations hasn't come out to deny those claims therefore they are valid. Also, there have also been many cases where sources like WSJ, BBC and so many other sources used here have lied even more times before too, should we exclude them now then? Also, the Alba statement, as you both are making me repeat, made it clear that their countries statement are represented through this joint statement. More over abstaining from a vote means nothing at all. And don't try and kid me with we will affect their tourism, this article is already destroying Venezuela's tourism by that logic, should maybe we should remove the entire article then? Or how about everything related to either Maduro or Guaido in the article can easily be used for evidence as slander? Seriously? Also, Wikipedia did specifically say that sources doesn't have to be neutral, sources can be biased, it's in your rules.
"The countries of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America - Treaty of Trade of the Peoples (ALBA-TCP), we reiterate our support and recognition of the elected government of President Nicolás Maduro Moros, as expressed by our Heads of State and of Governments in the Declaration of the XVI ALBA-TCP Summit held in Havana, Cuba on December 14, 2018." - there we go. Nebakin (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
The Venezuelan government does not speak for other countries, and your source does not say what you say it does. I'm done here. You will need to gain consensus for the edits you propose: as of now, you have not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and we should avoid whataboutism arguments. If understand correctly, the ALBA statement took place on December 2018. Countries positions have also shifted greatly after Maduro's inauguration and Guaido's proclamation, and the sources in the article are more recent than the ones provided here. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
The ALBA statement is from 24th Jan, the 2 sources for Antigua and Grenada are 29th and 30th Jan. None of the sources also either mention these countries are explicitly neutral, in fact for Antigua's case, it is explicitly mentioned Antigua DOES NOT recognise Guaido, this plus the fact that ALBA statement clearly shows Antigua's position, plus the fact that Antigua has not denied any of those statement either. Therefore they do not contradict the earlier ALBA statement. It REITERATES "support and recognition of the elected government of President Nicolás Maduro Moros" that has been expressed "by our Heads of State and of Governments in the Declaration of the XVI ALBA-TCP Summit held in Havana, Cuba on December 14, 2018". it's a reiteration, a reconfirmation. Nebakin (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
The "two sources" are not reliable sources for this content. You have no consensus; please move on and come back to this when you have a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

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

There are 15 other nations in the SADC that are not included under supporting Maduro. As per the SADC's statement (, I think it is very obvious that these nations support Maduro.

In particular these 2 quotes makes it very clear: "In particular, these countries have sought to undermine a democratically elected Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela led by His Excellency President Nicolas Maduro Moros by proclaiming Mr. Juan Guaido Marquez as Interim-President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela."

"SADC notes that the people of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela expressed their political choices through Parliamentary Elections and Presidential Elections held in December 2015 and May 2018 respectively, and urges the international community and all stakeholders to respect the outcomes of these elections."

Making it obvious the 16 states of SADC support Maduro, especially Namibia since it is written by Namibia's president, supports Maduro. If there are no valid objections after an hour, I will be editing these few countries in too. Nebakin (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Answered already above. The Lima Group supports Guiado, but Mexico, a member of the Lima Group, does not. Individual countries may differ from the position taken by groups they are members of. Each country is best viewed case by case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
It may be so for the others besides S.Africa, but the case for Namibia is clear, it is clear as day Namibia supports Maduro since their president personally wrote this statement. Nebakin (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
The SADC speaks for the SADC. Do you have a source for Namibia? I have been looking for days, and have found nothing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
The President of Namibia wrote the statement, that's the source already. You have already found it. Nebakin (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
The President of Namibia in that statement is speaking for the SADC. (It strikes me as strange that there is no statement from him re his own country.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
He wrote this statement for the SADC, which Namibia is a part of, do you even get that? Namibia is a part of SADC and Namibia has not come out to deny or contradict this statement. Therefore there is more evidence supporting that Namibia supports Maduro than not. It is as simple as that, this is as explicit as it can get for Namibia. Their own president wrote it already, why would you even need to expect him to repeat himself? Do you really need him to tweet out the same exact thing he said on his own private twitter? Can you even expect anyone to do that, keep repeating themselves? I really see no valid objection here since it's a clear cut case for Namibia, we shouldn't be looking at things that doesn't exist, but rather things that already do and are right in front of your eyes. Nebakin (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I get it; we disagree. Please avoid personalizing discussions. Use reliable sources. Provide a source, or move on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Nothing was personalised, not even close. Also, source has been provided, editing will commence now since there is already clear cut evidence for Namibia. Nebakin (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
"Geingob, during his toast at the presentation, welcomed Paredes and told him that the Southern African Development Community and the Namibian Government issued a statement on their position which recognises the elected presidential candidate." - 20 Feb 2019 Nebakin (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I do not see that text in that source-- I see only statements from Venezuelans. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── It seems the site asks for a suscription. Is there a way I can read the whole article? --Jamez42 (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Nebakin, who is Geingob, who is Paredes, and provide a larger quote. We can take that to the Reliable Sources noticeboard to ask if it is acceptable. Without a fuller quote or context, it is not. We still do not know who is speaking for whom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Hage G. Geingbob is the president of Namibia, the very same guy who wrote the SADC statement. Omar Ernesto Berroteran Paredes is the Venezuelan ambassador to Namibia. It's an article by NAMPA, Namibia's national news agency. -> you can read it here. Nebakin (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks, that helps. Let's make sure I am following all the pieces.

The source is "Lela Mobile", which indicates very clearly that it is based on user-submitted content, which makes it undeniably not a reliable source. Wikipedia does not accept user-submitted content as a reliable source-- that would be the same as citing Wikipedia, where anyone in their mother's basement can say anything. Going on ... Lela mobile says that the president of Namibia, Hage G. Geingbob, gave a toast on 20 February to Maduro's ambassador in which he acknowledged (someone unnamed) as the elected president. Next, we have a press release that either duplicates that or is the source of it (which?), and then we have vague wording about which president is being recognized. (Half the world considers the elected president is Guaido, so this cagey wording continues to be a problem.)

Do you see all the problems? If you can help unpack all of this, we can make progress on Namibia.

Have a look at WP:AGF; responsible editing is all we're asking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I also find it curious that a full month after Guaido swore an oath as interim president, these countries have not unequivocally and simply stated and published their statements of support. Perhaps they want to have it both ways, and not get into trouble with anyone? Appease Maduro while not making a clear statement. At any rate, Wikipedia cannot take the irresponsible position of claiming support in the absence of reliable sources. Neutral is safe territory, based on known reliably sourced information. The sources you have presented so far are neither reliable nor clear in their statements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
First of all, lela mobile is NOT the source, NAMPA is, it's even stated right in the Lela site (WINDHOEK, 20 FEB (NAMPA)). Secondly, Lela has already unpack all of it as you've asked, so progress is already made. Thirdly, "president of Namibia, Hage G. Geingbob, gave a toast on 20 February to Maduro's ambassador in which he acknowledged (someone unnamed) as the elected president." This right here is proof that you are doing nothing but nitpicking. That "someone unknowned" has already been named, it's already right there in the sentence, "gave a toast on 20 February to MADURO'S ambassador in which he acknowledged as the elected president". I am no English expert, but I can with my education in English, clearly and easily tell you that Maduro is your so called "unnamed person". There is no logical way you can try and convince anyone that it is not talking about Maduro. In that sentence there are only TWO people who are elected presidents (Guaido is NOT elected), Geingbob and Maduro, so please explain to us, publicly and logically, why does Geingbob need to give a toast to Maduro's ambassador to Namibia in which he (Geingbob) acknowledge himself (Geingbob) as elected president? Or is it that, by logic and the rules of the English language , that that sentence have already CLEARLY stated that Geingbob gave a toast to MADURO'S ambassador in which he (Geingbob) acknowledges Maduro as elected president? Please answer it honestly to the best of your English capabilities. Thank you Nebakin (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Maduro is not elected either; this is a cagey statement. You are asking us to accept your statement (maybe others will). Now, you have finally explained who's who, provided a source that may prove reliable (I don't know-- I would ask at the Reliable Sources noticeboard), you have claimed that the press release is a good source (I don't know-- I am not familiar with Namibia), you have made your claim that this statement endorses Maduro. What you have not done is wait to gain consensus before editwarring this into the article. I suggest next time we will all progress faster if you work on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Nebakin Here is the About Us page for NAMPA, which does explain their official capacity. If you could a) recognize that there are over 100 countries on this page and few of us are familiar with all of them, then b) define the who's who involved and use reliable sources, and c) explain the reliability of sources according to Wikipedia guidelines, we will all get there faster and with less agida.

I apologize for my mistake in thinking you were using the Lelamobile user-generated content as the basis for this claim, as I now see you were only using it as a source for the full-text. But you are still asking us to take Lela mobile's word for it. Do you have access to the full source of the NAMPA press release? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Another item for your WP:AGF contemplation: I have been searching for days for a source for Namibia, since it has come up here three times. Had the press release used the words either "Maduro" or "Guaido", it might have come up in my searches. It didn't specifically mention Maduro, hence no way for most people to locate it. See? It's not a Wikipedia conspiracy. It's a cagey press release. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

SADC member states are not included individually from the statement. The SADC group itself should already be included though.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

On FridayEdit

Jorge Arreaza will make a joint declared statement with potentially 46 countries. If the countries ratify it, should we add them to the Pro Maduro Section? Self proclaimed neutral ones who ratify, should they be changed too?


star =Indicates is already on Pro Maduro list

Double star =Indicates is on vocal neutrality section

  • Algeria
  • Angola**
  • Antigua and Barbuda**
  • Azerbaijan
  • Bangladesh
  • Barbados**
  • Belarus*
  • Belize**
  • Bolivia*
  • Burundi
  • Cambodia*
  • China*
  • Cuba*
  • DR Congo
  • Dominica*
  • Egypt
  • El Salvador*
  • Equatorial Guinea*
  • Eritrea
  • Gambia
  • India**
  • Indonesia**
  • Iran*
  • Kazakhstan
  • Laos*
  • Malaysia
  • Mauritania
  • Mozambique
  • Myanmar
  • Namibia**
  • Nicaragua*
  • North Korea*
  • Pakistan
  • Philippines
  • Russia*
  • Saint Vincent and the Grenadines*
  • South Africa*
  • Sri Lanka
  • Sudan
  • Suriname*
  • Syria*
  • Tanzania
  • Turkey*
  • Uganda
  • Vietnam
  • Zimbabwe


This is the a RELIABLE source and not a propaganda one. It is El Comercio (Peru) and it is the oldest newspaper company in Peru.Fenetrejones (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we should just wait until it is signed? --MaoGo (talk) 10:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
First, it depends on what the text of the any document they potentially sign says (as an example, Lima Group supports Guaido, but Mexico doesn't, so we add Lima Group as a supporter, but not Mexico-- groups can't speak for individual countries, so it depends on what text goes behind the document these representatives sign-- if they do).

Second, I would not use El Comercio (Peru) for information like this. Sources are reliable depending on the text they are sourcing. Yes, El Comercio Perus is generally a good and reliable source for basic facts, but something like this would be picked up by major and higher quality sources, in English, so we could use them. Wikipedia always prefers the highest quality source, and en.wikipedia prefers English-language sources when they are available (see WP:NONENG)-- if this were to happen, we would expect the New York Times to cover it. Also ... In working with a fast-moving situation (the concert article), I have found that El Comercio Peru has gotten ahead of the game several times, maybe wanting to be the first to print something. There is no hurry; we can wait for a high quality source before a big change like proposed here, which would not be a long wait. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Aside, as to El Comercio Peru, enjoy this little dittie! [12] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Wait: As long as it is a signed document that is not sourced directly from the Maduro government, the source should be accurate. Both parties have already been known for exaggerating their support.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I did say wait until the official document is signed. If for example Zimbabwe approved and signed it and Malaysia did not than Zimbabwe would be added and Malaysia would not. That is why i Said the ones "who ratify it"Fenetrejones (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

El pollo CarvajalEdit

I wanted to make a note about Hugo Carvajal defection should this be included in the article? Should it be under military defections? --MaoGo (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes. But is he military per se? If not, we need to adjust headings. Or maybe we need a "Political defections" section? Not sure ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Military intelligence, so it’s up to interpretation Kingsif (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
So, instead of creating endless sub-sections, what if for now, he is just placed at the top of the "Defections" section, before it goes into sub-sections? Then, if there are later more politicians, we can sub-head? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
He is no longer part of the military. I will try to add it, accordingly. Tell me if it is ok. --MaoGo (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Made it. --MaoGo (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Carvajal's defection can be compared to that of Luisa Ortega Díaz, her husband (who was also a deputy) and of Rafael Ramírez. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Return to "2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis" page.