Talk:Venezuelan presidential crisis/Archive 3

El Salvador

El Salvador already has a note for flipping, should it be added that their newly elected President supports Guaidó? Kingsif (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Truth be told I think we should wait for an official announcement. However we could get ready to change the country's position when that happens. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree we can give it a bit more time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

On Ukraine recognizing Guaido

There seems to be misunderstanding. Ukraine recognized Guaido as leader, but not as interim president. MFA Ukraine retweeted this tweet on 5 February 2019: https://twitter.com/SergiyKyslytsya/status/1092736626202157057 which explain how Ukraine support Guaido, but not as interim president. So maybe Ukraine should be moved to "support National Assembly", not Interim President? --WeifengYang (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

From whom is that Tweet? There is no official flag on the account. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Ukraine recognizes Guaido as leader of Venezuela https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/ukrinform-ukraine-recognizes-guaido-as-leader-of-venezuela.html --Vitalik1986 (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia:@Vitalik1986: If you check this verified twitter account for Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine (@MFA_Ukraine), They retweeted the tweet I posted above, around 5 Feb 2019 （scroll down a few you'll see MFA_Ukraine retweeted this tweet). The tweet begin with quote "Лідер, але ще не президент: події у Венесуелі очима українського дипломата" (translation: Leader, but not president: events in Venezuela as Ukrainian diplomat). Which means MFA Ukraine officially is saying that they endorse Guaido as the leader of the only democratic body in Venezuela, but MFA Ukraine had not yet officially recognize Guaido as interim president. --WeifengYang (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again! I am staying out of the map mess, which is a full-time job, but putting the most complete info possible here will help ZiaLater when they get to this thread. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@WeifengYang:@SandyGeorgia: Most likely it's a point of view of Sergiy Kyslytsya. If you look describe of him tweeter (@SergiyKyslytsya), there is "The views are personal, and are not the government's position unless it's clearly & explicitly indicated. Here is how it works: I don't imply, you don't infer!". --Vitalik1986 (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Bulgarian tweet

@WeifengYang: There is no verified flag on this Twitter account, so I have moved this citation here for discussion: Zaharieva, Ekaterina (6 February 2019). "Today the #Bulgarian government decided to officially support and accept @jguaido as acting President of #Venezuela. We need a new democratic presidential vote. Committed to the better future of the people of 🇻🇪. Looking forward to the first meeting of the EU-driven #ContactGroup". Twitter. Retrieved 6 February 2019. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, could you please specify which part of this source specifically deals with Guaido, provide the exact text, and provide a translation here for discussion? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: For the Bulgarian Minister of Foreign Affairs Ekaterina Zaharieva's account, here is a verified account for Saudi Foreign Ministry that @ the Zaharieva account: https://twitter.com/KSAmofaEN/status/1092464889396891648 (in the tweet @EZaharievaMFA is the account I quoted for Bulgaria, some countries' MFA account is not verified but accurate, such as the Czech MFA account). On the Bulgarian language, the translation is this part: quote (paragraph 6 first sentence): "Вярваме, че г-н Хуан Гуайдо, председател на Националното събрание, като изпълняващ функциите временен президент на Венецуела, ще насрочи провеждането на свободни, честни и демократични президентски избори в съответствие с конституцията." Translation: "We believe that Mr. Juan Guido, President of the National Assembly, as interim president of Venezuela, will schedule free, fair and democratic presidential elections in accordance with the constitution."--WeifengYang (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; @ZiaLater: is working on the map, so this more complete information will help them put this together. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2019

In the third paragraph, add UN "Security Council" (be more specific; this was the very first time the Venezuelan crisis officially entered the UNSC's Agenda).

Also, the regime of the usurper Maduro (official now that most of Europe calls him that and recognizes Guaidó) has claimed the US wants the oil that belongs to the People of Venezuela (who are on the streets asking him to step down in percentages of 85-90); it has been widely argued, chiefly by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (@SecPompeo on Twitter) that it is Russia and China that have been stealing Venezuela's riches (including many tons of gold) for years now.

It should also be added, that while there is a sort of crisis going on, the Constitution of our country definitely tips the scales in favor of Acting President Guaidó (@jguaido on Twitter) and his Legitimate Government. All of these edits I suggest for the intro section, not for the article as a whole.

@Jamez42 #SOS #Venezuela #SorryNotSorry

Dialsamai (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I have added "Security Council" to UN-- thanks! For your other suggestions, Wikipedia text must be based on reliable sources. Having followed the sources closely, I do not believe we will find one that has wording that will allow inclusion of any "tipping of the scale" one way or the other, but if you have one, please put it here for discussion. Also, if you have sources for the Pompeo statement, please include them.

Twitter tags don't go anywhere or do anything on Wikipedia-- they just show as text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Jamez42 (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Protest deaths removed for discussion

It was reported on social media that by midday, two people were killed in protests in San Cristóbal, Táchira, and four in Barinas.

References

I have removed this text for discussion and better sourcing. Further, we have a source saying 13 were killed, so not sure why we need to include poorly sourced text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

PS, I am done copyediting for now, in case anyone wants to look for typos. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Jamez42 (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Deleted part on Venezuelans protesting in the US

Not to spam, but so people know what I'm doing. Here's what I deleted:

In the United States, Venezuelan protesters gathered in Washington, D.C. and New York.

The sentence relied on two sources. One is some sort of Turkish website which strangely has a logo that borders on copyright infringement with the Spanish Alcoholics Anonymous (don't believe, search the Alcohólicos Anónimos, then go to their website), I would imagine it lacks affiliation though. Anyhow, never heard of them, and Turkey has a horrible reputation when it comes to free press, so the source can't stand alone. Second is an MSN article, meh, but it states in the article that it relies on a report from Sputnik. Sputnik is commonly called Russian propaganda. If you know Spanish peruse the article and you'll see that it never mentions the people are Venezuelan, and if the photo is actually from the protest that the article stated 30-40 attended, then you'll see they don't look Venezuelan either. If the sources were decent, I would have just taken out the Venezuelan part, but the sources are a nightmare, so I chopped it. If you disagree please let me know, and let's discuss! Sources: https://www.aa.com.tr/es/vg/galería-videos/manifestación-pro-maduro-en-washington/ https://www.msn.com/es-ve/noticias/mundo/seguidores-de-maduro-en-las-calles-de-nueva-york/ar-BBSNgcYAlcibiades979 (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we need to leave something in the article about chavismo protests. Even if practically no one ever shows up, we should show they happen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I have some free time right now, and I'm still hyped up from work so I'll work on a couple of paragraphs for RussiaAlcibiades979 (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Chavismo

The "Bolivarian Revolution" was a thing that didn't work out very well and has petered out; the more encompassing and enduring term is chavismo. Changed in lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Jamez42 (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2019 (Palestine)

Palestine is NOT apart of the United Nations. Therefore, move Palestine to "Maduro Supporter' under 'Non-UN States' 2600:6C4A:4E7F:F410:A062:6A3D:F37A:815A (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The note/comment within the text indicates that Palestine is listed that way because it is a UN observor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we should add "observer" between parenthesis? --Jamez42 (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Footnoted, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Jamez42 (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

European Union

Sorry for opening this again, but Prodavinci published an interactive map on the position of each European country regarding crisis. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

More countries have joined,  Done --Jamez42 (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Overlinking

Could folks please have a look at WP:OVERLINK? There are many unnecessary links in this article (I have just removed another link to United States, for example, but it keeps coming back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll mark this as  Done --Jamez42 (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Where should Serbia go

They have said that they will not recognize Guiado source:https://mundo.sputniknews.com/europa/201901251085023338-serbia-no-reconoce-a-guaido/ --Fenetrejones (talk) 7:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I am unable to find a single unbiased source on this. I hope we are not sourcing things to sputniknews in this article, in the absence of other sources? Perhaps another source will emerge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Unbiased sources don't exist for anything 212.15.177.105 (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done inadequate sourcing found to attribute any position to Serbia at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: regarding this edit, please read WP:BRD and WP:EDITWAR-- you did not discuss before you reinstated text that is not supported by a (very marginal) source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Go read the source before accusing someone of edit warring. "Serbian Foreign Minister Ivica Dacic today expressed his support for Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro". The first paragraph. Jim7049 (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Albertonews is not a strong enough source for this kind of statement. You were wise to remove your personal attack, and I will give you one free pass. Don't do it again. Please get familiar with BRD; discuss on talk and gain consensus before you re-insert deleted text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: So are you claiming the source is lying about the foreign ministers statement? That's pathetic, here are some 3 additional sources confirming that: [1], [2], [3]. Since there are facts, you go get consensus if you wanna change sourced material. Jim7049 (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Your first two sources are the same, are poor quality, and do not say that. Your third source, Sputnik news, does not even say that. Every source firmly reiterates Serbia's commitment to dialogue to resolve the situation. Your text relies on one marginal source (Albertonews), when every other source available disagrees.

Stop personalizing the discussion, with words like pathetic and lying, and confine your discussion to sources, thank you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is where it says [4]. Jim7049 (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, that source does verify the text, although I doubt that it is high enough quality, either, to resolve the contradiction with every other source. I will leave that for others to opine. I do not consider either it or Albertonews to be of sufficient quality to be making statements about Serbia's position, given the clarity of every other source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

If you doubt it being not high quality then you have no idea what that source is, because it's the 33rd most popular website in Spain [5], so you better put up or shut up. Jim7049 (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Third request to stop personalizing discussions (Put up or shut up, after "are you stupid?" Please confine your discussion to sourcing and content). Thirty-third most popular is not a measure of reliability, and regarding this edit, please do not remove maintenance tags until you have consensus. You replaced one marginal source with another; please gain consensus as to whether the sourcing is adequate to the statement, considering every other source reflects Serbia's commitment to dialogue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

You need consensus to put up those tags because no person has called that source unreliable, and you need a reason to call it unreliable. Jim7049 (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

This remains unresolved, with maintenance tags removed from article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a perfectly valid website - this is news, not propaganda. Doesn't seem to lean hard-right or hard-left. The edit should stay, and the tags unnecessary. Serbia's position on this is easily understandable considering their position on Kosovo - they didn't support the Catalan independence event, either. Additionally, let's not be so thin-skinned and taking offense so easily. As someone famous once said, "if you're going to play lumberjack, you need to be able to handle your side of the log." TP discussions can get a bit testy. Man-up. 18:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.22.143 (talk)

 Not done --Jamez42 (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049:, you have been told that there isn't consensus to include Serbia among the supporters of Maduro and have previously been warned against edit warring. Prensa Latina is a progvernment source, and even then it only quotes Sputnik on reject against interventionism, and B92 only says that "Serbia favors resolving problems in Venezuela through dialogue." Please try finding an official statement by the Serbian government recognizing Maduro as president.--Jamez42 (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Foreign Minister of Serbia said they support Maduro according to the source, even if it quotes Sputnik do you think they are lying about that? Jim7049 (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: This source [6] is very reliable and haven't seen it quoting Sputnik anywhere. Jim7049 (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: "Sputnik subraya que la abierta oposición de Estados Unidos y los principales países de la Unión Europea contra el presidente electo venezolano, Nicolás Maduro, encontró el respaldo en la región de Croacia y Macedonia al reconocer al autoproclamado mandatario Juan Guaidó." Reading again, this isn't a quote on the Minister but rather the outlet, Sputnik Serbia. The Minister only states that dialogue is the solution for the country.--Jamez42 (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Thanks for including the source again, I forgot about it since it wasn't included in the edit. Is there an official communicate published by the government? --Jamez42 (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: I don't think so, but even though Sputnik is Russian, I don't think they would lie about a Foreign Minister's statement. Jim7049 (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: I have to admit that it would make for Serbia to support Maduro because of historic relations and because Kosovo has supported Guaidó. Sputnik isn't related in the last source, which is the one that states his support for Maduro. I would like to invite other users on discussing the topic. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: It does say this (when translated) ""Venezuela is a friendly country that has always supported us, and we have not considered changing our position regarding this country," the Serbian diplomatic head told the Russian state news portal Sputnik, reproduced by Serbian media." Jim7049 (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Good point. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Pro-Maduro mural in London.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Maduro and Guaidó (Presidential crisis).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Slovakia and El Salvador

• Slovakia declines to back Venezuela's Guaido as Maduro faces rising pressure
• Bukele prioriza relación con EEUU y se aleja de Venezuela y Nicaragua --Jamez42 (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not think it will be changed. This page is evidently pro-Guaido. The neutrality of an EU state is considered "Support to the National Assembly". (93.48.40.135 (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)) — 93.48.40.135 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Jamez42: Slovakia is neutral. We can wait to see what the president-elect of El Salvador says when they take office.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Agree. Just letting the talk page updated with the latest news. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Marking as  Done --Jamez42 (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Correlation between Map and Country

There is so far four countries for which the correlation between the map and the country list in the recognition is missing. Trinidad and Tobago (in map as neutral, does not appear on the list), Serbia (in map as pro-Maduro, does not appear on the list), Slovenia (in map as pro-National Assemby, does not appear on the list), and Cyprus (in map as pro-National Assemby, does not appear on map). We should put them on the list with confirmed source. --WeifengYang (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@WeifengYang:  Done I didn't put Serbia per the reasons that I have stated in the edit summaries. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Montevideo contact group

This section should be improved. Some countries and organizations should be added in the section about the Montevideo contact group according to Mogherini's words: it will be coordinated by the EU (with the active participation of Germany, France, Sweden, UK, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands and Italy) and some Latino-American countries (Bolivia, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Uruguay).

https://www.agenzianova.com/a/5c56e4244a9b23.26901047/2291419/2019-02-03/venezuela-mogherini-e-vazquez-giovedi-a-montevideo-incontro-gruppo-contatto-internazionale — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.162.70.141 (talk)

These changes should probably be proposed at International Conference on the Situation in Venezuela. I'll leave this un-answered in case someone else wants to add content on this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I found this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-uruguay/eu-backed-group-gathers-to-discuss-good-faith-plan-for-venezuela-idUSKCN1PW0MT and also a video from the uruguayan chancellor Rodolfo Nin Novoa https://twitter.com/perezvalery/status/1093611820731035649 and also cover from RT https://actualidad.rt.com/actualidad/304908-mogherini-rueda-prensa-venezuela — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.158.111.52 (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll mark this as  Done --Jamez42 (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The Pope and the Vatican's role in the crisis

Both the disputed presidents have requested the intervention of the Pope as mediator. Maduro: http://www.ansa.it/english/news/2019/02/04/maduro-letter-to-pope-relaunches-dialogue-parolin_9b7d6067-9ce8-4674-8900-3422d440c8fe.html

Guaido: http://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/mondo/2019/02/07/venezuelaanche-guaido-si-appella-a-papa_af6eb6a3-b2cb-42cc-ab56-89eb54104a46.html

The answer of the Pope: "we are always willing". https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6668867/Venezuela-crisis-Nicolas-Maduro-says-not-history-traitor.html

I think You might add it in a new section called: "Attempts of mediation", involving also the Montevideo Conference. (93.48.40.135 (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)) — 93.48.40.135 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The opposition has been clear about the Pope and mediation, saying they will not negotiate with any party that will help further human rights abuse in Venezuela; perhaps you are confusing the Pope with God in the source provided. I suggest we wait to see how this develops, and how mainstream and Venezuelan sources cover it as it develops. There is no hurry to add something that is still murky. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

For example, El opositor remarcó que ha sido "muy claro" al decir que no irá a un "falso diálogo" y se refirió a las palabras que ofreció el papa Francisco sobre una mediación en Venezuela –luego de que Maduro le enviara una carta– y dijo que el Vaticano puede servir como garante para quienes se han "negado a ver la realidad venezolana".[7][8] [9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

And another very clear statement of position on dialogue today: [10]. A general statement that the National Assembly will not dialogue with parties to human rights abuse (and they have had previous encounters with Francis) should do it. But where to put it in the article ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Vatican added, with this edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

VoluntariosxVenezuela hacking

This should be added if someone has time.

NTN24

Tal Cual

MotherBoard

Kapersky Lab

I hope someone else can write this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: where in the article? --MaoGo (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

MaoGo, I can see two possibilities. Add a new heading for just Media with a sub-section on Social Media, where Social Media is now. Or, add it to Events (Timeline), after Threats and Intimidation as its own heading, Manipulation or something ... because if history serves us, there will be more events like this. It is kind of a continuation of threats and intimidation (a la Tascon List), because they want info on collaborators, so we should name the section in a way that allows for growth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I might do it in a couple of hours, if nobody has done it already. I hoped to integrate it to the censorship section because it is somehow related to the censorship that affected CANTV users, but that would mean a different title for the whole section (Censorship and privacy? I truly don't know). --MaoGo (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

We'll figure it out as we go; I'm just glad someone is writing it because it is hard to keep up with all these new developments! I see it as beyond censorship, because they used deception to capture personal information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@MaoGo: well done! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Let us say it is  Done then. --MaoGo (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Venezuela Live Aid

thumb Richard Branson is apparently holding a massive benefit concert in near Venezuela to raise money? Does this get its own page already? It would definitely deserve one as an event... preferably when there's more info, though. Kingsif (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

CNBCIQBloomberg, you get the idea. Sputnik is laughing at the idea... (honestly, is it a good one?) Kingsif (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Gets its own article, undeniably notable; summarize to here with two or three sentences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Great, working on a draft and will summarise here with image until draft in mainsapce Kingsif (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

And I have been entirely unable to keep up with the volume of humanitarian aid updates needed to this article-- the topic is moving too fast. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

"Public opinion" section

In that section several times refer to opinion polls, which should show a low level of popular support for Maduro. And all of these polls are published on this website, which "has been described as having been anti-Bolivarian government stance." The anti-Bolivarian website refers to a poll that I conducted, I suspect, by an anti-Bolivarian "public opinion research agency." And as a result, it turned out that "the people are against Maduro." What a surprise. Should La Patilla be considered as RS at all? 37.151.19.210 (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

We also have Hinterlaces, which is likely state propaganda, so the section is balanced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that they immediately define Hinterlaces in the text as “pro-Maduro”, while the anti-Maduro position of “La Patilla” (which is the only source of information about the polls allegedly conducted by Hercon and Meganálisis) apparently considered a fact that does not need to be mentioned. 37.151.19.210 (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

That is the problem. Note that the Wikipedia page of "La Patilla" includes a sentence which states " It has been described as having an anti-Bolivarian government stance" with two sources cited. --59.66.60.251 (talk) 10:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, the user "59.66.60.251" is me (I forgot to log in again).-- A planetree leaf (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, the text at La Patilla with the claim that "it has an anti-Bolivarian government stance", is not fairly representing the source (WSJ). Because it is behind a paywall, I accessed it at my library via ProQuest, and encourage others to do similar. World News: Venezuela's Press Crackdown Stokes Growth of Online Media, Minaya, Ezequiel. Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]08 Sep 2014: A.15. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Jamez42 (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

2.10 Military intervention

It's very messy, this chapter. Allied security forces present in the country after invitation by government is not "intervention" according to dictionary definition. Information is relevant, but it seems not neutral to say foreign troops cooperating with national troops are intervening.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.156.174.147 (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

According to the sources, it is intervention. We have no right as users to manipulate or interpret what the sources state.----ZiaLater (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Not only that, but according to the Venezuelan constitution the National Assembly is the only body that can authorize such "invitations". Even then, it can still be argued that this hasn't been approved by Guaidó. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I think your justification fall flat in so many ways. Would we talk about separate military interventions in the Iraq war by Blackwater and other private militaries that was hired by the coalition? No, that is not the correct use of that word. Also, these are quotes from interviews that are part of larger context in the sources we are talking about. When example Donald Trump calls Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas" in interviews, that does not qualify adding a paragraph on her wiki about how she is considered by some to be Pocahontas. Instead, we write about that debate from neutral point of view, as should this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.156.174.147 (talk) 21:26, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

 Not done --Jamez42 (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Greenland

I know it is a territory of Denmark, but why can't Greenland be included in the Non-UN states that recognizes Guaido?? Whoever made the map put Greenland as a place that recognizes Guaido, so the list should correspond with that photo. It is just like South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia that recognizes Maduro, but they are also are not countries or public territories. Greenland has their own national anthem, flag, and system of government on the island including a high-commissioner and its own 31 member parliament. With that being said, I think Greenland should be included in this list. Thoughts?? Ballers19 (Talk) 04:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Anyone??Ballers19 (Talk) 00:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

That'd be like listing Gibraltar because it's a British territory. Greenland isn't a state, it doesn't claim to be one and nothing recognizes it. Why would Wikipedia? Kingsif (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2019

Add Greenland to supporter of'Guaido Presidency' Figureskater133 (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

See Greenland section already on this page, above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Humanitarian aid

Spanish article tackling the humanitarian aid efforts in the current crisis.--Oscar_. (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

International protests section

I think this can be easily summarized as:

International demonstrations occurred supporting and denouncing both Guaido and Maduro. Pro-Guaido social media users shared #XXXX while pro-Maduro user shared #XXXX.

I do not think we need a peeing contest of who protested where and said what. Internationally, it is more appropriate to summarize such information.----ZiaLater (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

There wasn't any problem with this section when it reported only pro-Guaido protests, you didn't asked to be reduced. I added examples or pro-Maduro protests and they were deleted because lacking references. Then, I added references and now, curiously, you ask to trim the section :) I am against deleting this section, the international protests are relevant, sentences are sourced and the article isn't long enough to justify this trimming. emijrp (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree Simon1811 (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Jamez42 (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I have to say I like the International protests section its balanced and its good for information. I just don't see any reason at all to getting rid of section. KingTintin (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Jamez42 (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed however I think ZiaLater is right that we have to be careful it does not turn into a "peeing contest"Simon1811 (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Jamez42 (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support, summarizing the section can help with avoiding edit conflicts. @Emijrp:, it doesn't matters what content was before, it matters the current content in the article, and any proposal helping to comply with Wikipedia's policies shouldn't be disregarded. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support, to avoid this article becoming even more bloated, when there is a protest article. Remove all unreliable sources, and one or two general sources, and then link to the protest article in one, or at most two, reliably sourced sentences. (And while at it, please go through and eliminate all the unreliable sources and text unverified by source that I highlighted above as repeatedly inserted by one editor. I am gone all day for a conference. If that editor is still inserting fake news by the end of the day, I will seek admin intervention.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Sockblocked, but I still support using summary style for this item. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose (i.e. keep the section) - it's easier to let people add the information and remove it later if it isn't valuable than to keep it out. The protest article 2019 Venezuelan protests is very out of date. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree, while the events are developing, better to have more detail, and then later trim detail as we move farther from the event. -Furicorn (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support summary mode for this is the most neutral road. Wikipedia is not a daily newspaper. --MaoGo (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll be marking this as  Done as there doesn't seem to be consensus. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to archive with no consensus ... will wait another few days to week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

AN elections

CBC & ABC say that Maduro has proposed that he will hold free elections soon! To replace the National Assembly. Does this warrant a brief mention? Kingsif (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should take Maduro at his word that the elections will be "free", but this should be in the article in some form. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: This should totally be included, it's an idea that has repeatedly been suggested, including one of Maduro's latest interviews. Has this been included? --Jamez42 (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I’m not sure, I’ve been taking a little break while there’s fewer developments, but the article has been restructured again, so I don’t know if it’s been included. Kingsif (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Kingsif I am unaware of any new developments on elections; with Maduro investigating anyone who cooperates with the National Assembly, it is unclear how they can form a new CNE. Should we archive this thread until there are further developments? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I think there haven't been developments, and in my opinion, the government would hypothetically summon elections once Guaido's momentum is lost. As far as I understand, the Comission to name a new CNE is made up of Assembly deputies, who have already received plenty of threats and punishments, so they won't back down, but they have stated that elections will only take place once Maduro steps down and that there's a transitional government. That being said, I agree with archiving. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Pro-Maduro protest?

https://www.france24.com/en/20190207-uk-protesters-demand-central-bank-return-maduro-gold?ref=tw RBL2000 (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC) — RBL2000 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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? [11] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Troll Jamez42 keeps putting that tag. RBL2000 (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC) — RBL2000 (talk • contribs) 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 Argentine

https://www.efe.com/efe/english/world/argentines-march-to-us-embassy-protest-interference-in-venezuela/50000262-3889097 RBL2000 (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC) — RBL2000 (talk • contribs) 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[12], 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. RBL2000 (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC) — RBL2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@RBL2000: [13] --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)

References

POV wording in lead, "pro-Maduro"

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)

Namibia and other Southern African countries support Maduro.

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. 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 (talk • contribs) 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. RBL2000 (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC) — RBL2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References

@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 Namibia

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
2. Namibia

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 (talk • contribs) 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
2. Namibia

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:) 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 this is an official United Nations website btw. Both the permanent represnative of Myanmar and the permanent representative of Namibia 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 .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)

References

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, [14] 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;[15] 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)

Foreign vs humanitarian aid

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)

Article size

@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:

• International protests section — possibly summarize that protests happened on both sides internationally.
• Government reactions — Maybe a separate article? (See: Reactions to the 2014–2017 Venezuelan protests) Military intervention section should remain.

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)

Update

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 update

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)

Could use more eyes at Ilhan Omar

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"

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

Japan

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)

please add Federated States of Micronesia

Source 1: http://islandtimes.us/fsm-rmi-support-guidos-presidency-palau-neutral-on-venezuela-crisis/

Source 2: https://www.fijitimes.com/fsm-rmi-support-guidos-presidency-palau-neutral-on-venezuela-crisis/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacarids (talk • contribs) 17:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Lacarids; it is a very busy news day, and we will get to this, but perhaps not immediately. The second article is behind a paywall. Who are and what are the acronyms in the article title? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done @Lacarids: @SandyGeorgia: ----ZiaLater (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

El pollo Carvajal

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)

We should be able to find a way to separate these top chavistas from every Tom Dick and Harry, since the three defections that were so urgent below are really just commonplace. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Let us set this as  Done.--MaoGo (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Another extension for US personnel

To be worked in: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/venezuela-agrees-extend-u-s-diplomats-stay-another-30-days-n974826 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

México recognizes Maduro's presidency

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

Current image

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 vandalized

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 167.56.0.37 (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 images

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)

Thank you, Nick.mon, in my opinion these images are much preferred, until we get a better shot of Guaido. Does anyone object if we consider this section done for now and archive? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Italy

From Italian parliament Twitter account https://twitter.com/guglielmopicchi/status/1095426340285747201?s=19 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.

• https://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2019/02/12/news/moavero_milanesi_venezuela-218916725/

(37.160.59.241 (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC))

Ho hum. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Greece and Italy should be neutral

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[17], and Italy vetoed EU bid to recognize Guadio[18]. 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. (93.48.40.135 (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 case

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. (37.160.59.241 (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)) 37.160.59.241 (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:

• https://mobile.ilsole24ore.com/art/notizie/2019-02-12/venezuela-passa-la-risoluzione-di-maggioranza-non-il-riconoscimento-di-guaido/ABzuXOTB

(37.162.21.184 (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): https://www.ilfoglio.it/politica/2019/02/15/news/il-guaido-di-schrodinger-238242/ So it is complicated but not that easy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeifengYang (talk • contribs) 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:

https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2019/02/12/venezuela-intesa-m5s-lega-su-mozione-voto-subito-moavero-scorse-elezioni-illegittime-governo-condanna-violenze/4966507/

(93.48.40.135 (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.48.40.135 (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."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-12/venezuela-s-guaido-expresses-dismay-at-populist-italy-s-stand

(93.48.40.135 (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."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/italy-new-presidential-election-needed-soon-in-venezuela/2019/02/12/f987d1ee-2ec2-11e9-8781-763619f12cb4_story.html?utm_term=.f559d4aec772

(93.48.40.135 (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 up

Can someone make something out of the Italian stand? It keeps shiftaing on this page.217.123.76.65 (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 category

Please discuss. [19] 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 :) [20] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

South Korea

... has recognized Guiado, but I am not sure what are reliable sources among those reporting it ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

23 February events

not to nag, but this should be incorporated ASAP

Three Venezuelan National Guard personnel defect to Colombia after crossing the Simón Bolívar International Bridge on the Colombia–Venezuela border in an armored vehicle. A video posted on social media shows the men with their guns above their heads in a sign of surrender. (Miami Herald) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.26.175 (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Today is a very busy news day, I hope we can focus on reporting the most important events and avoid country alliance discussions while we update the article.--MaoGo (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

YES to very busy news day ... I have yet to get through my Wikipedia watchlist, much less finish reviewing all of today's news. And our editing time is taken up by one editor, repeatedly wanting to insert one piece of info, while not waiting for adequate sources for that insertion. We will get to this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, it's in, but still needs cleanup and citation formatting. I will get to that later today unless someone else does first.[21] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

And now I regret adding it so quickly, because this is disgusting.[22] There is no deadline. When we add info, we should do it completely and as correctly as possible. WP:NOTNEWS, and we should not be in a hurry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Having caught up with some of today's news, these three (which, hello, is four, which is why we shouldn't be in such a hurry) are only part of a much bigger picture, where there have been other defections. Please do not be expecting Wikipedia to report minute-by-minute when a Big Thing is Happening today. WP:NOTNEWS, and we have MUCH to incorporate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with SandyGeorgia about WP:NOTNEWS. I will be on later to keep a better eye on it.----ZiaLater (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I am still just sorting through all of today's news, so that we can make good entries when we do update. If we see a problem during the day of WP:NOTNEWS-style edits, I will request that the article be fully protected. So, people, please be patient and realize that today is a fast-moving news day, and Wikipedia is not news, but an encyclopedia. When we add info, we should get it right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Uupdate, it is still early in the day, and there are too many defections to sort. All should be updated later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

23 checklist

Just to be sure we get it all-- not just the Brazil and Colombia border conflicts[23] ... please add to list so we get it all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

1. Defections include that I know of multiple National Guard, FAES, [24] police and Navy, [25]  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

   23 desertados

   Un mayor del ejercito [26]

   Guaido personally receives the first 4 GN

   More than 60 defections https://www.infobae.com/america/venezuela/2019/02/23/el-gobierno-de-colombia-confirmo-285-heridos-por-la-represion-del-regimen-de-maduro-durante-el-paso-de-la-ayuda-humanitaria/

2. Massive protest in Caracas
3. Very large protests at least in Maracay and Barquisimeto[27]
4. Young man dead in Urena and more in Santa Elena de Uairen, reports of 4 [28] [29] (6?) dead, 40 wounded

   [30] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

   number wounded dead  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

5. Aid burned [31] [32]  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
6. Guaido at head of aid caravan [33] [34]  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
7. Have we yet mentioned harassment of deputies on their trip to the border?
8. Puerto Rico maritime aid blocked (?) --MaoGo (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

   [35] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

   [36] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

   [37]

   MaoGo is this topic up your alley (that is, do you want to write this para)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

9. Entire Pemon situation, guard backing off/surrendering No sources found. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
10. Vecchio tells Fuerzas Armadas that Maduro has ordered them to commit crimes against humanity, Guaido says same. [38] [39]

    Can't find Vecchio sourced,  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

11. Internet outage. --MaoGo (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

    Just a minor outage during Guaidó speech. [40]

     Done --MaoGo (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

12. Habif's "Venezuela, Ruge!" has become rallying call. Cannot find any reliable source connecting it to 23 Feb, cannot use social media original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

    CNN on Habif "Ruge", but not connected to 23 events

13. Trujillo holds Maduro responsible for safety of Colombian diplomats, and says Maduro has no authority to break relations with Colombia.  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-colombia-maduro/maduro-responsible-for-safety-of-colombian-embassy-staff-minister-idUSKCN1QC0UL

    https://www.eluniversal.com.mx/mundo/colombia-ordena-regreso-de-diplomaticos-en-venezuela-tras-anuncio-de-maduro

14. Journalist Carla Angola tweets that soldiers were chained to barricades so they could not leave (I don't trust this tweet, needs a very good source). This is bogus, we would have heard it from another source by now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

    Not a good enough source, [41] this is all coming from Carla Angola, need better verification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

15. Pueblo takes down barricades in several places. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
16. Guaido with three presidents at VAL (Colombia, Chile, Paraguay)  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

    [42]

    NYT “Venezuela Aid Standoff Turns Deadly, Maduro Severs Ties with Colombia”], The New York Times, 23 February 2019: “Mr. Guaidó, standing alongside the presidents of Paraguay, Colombia, and Chile urged the Venezuelan military to allow trucks to cross the border.” and “The presidents of Colombia, Chile and Paraguay attended the concert, rallying support for the opposition and calling for an end to Mr. Maduro’s presidency.”

17. Colombian military joins SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
18. Another 30 days for US diplomats. [43]  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

    And from section above (so I can archive that): https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/venezuela-agrees-extend-u-s-diplomats-stay-another-30-days-n974826 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

19. World reactions [44] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
20. Noticas Caracol reports that Ven military helped Guaido to Cucuta. [45] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
21. Some trucks (2?) went back to Colombia. --MaoGo (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

    Guaido Duque says he had them come back [46] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

     Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

22. Maduro spent the day dancing. [47]
23. Lima Group meeting Monday (with Gauido) [48]
24. Intoxicated/poisoned deputy. --MaoGo (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

     Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

    With great care (potential for BLP issue here if highest quality sources aren't used, because of allegations of women involved). Assistant and cousin: http://www.el-nacional.com/noticias/sociedad/superlano-fue-hospitalizado-cucuta-por-intoxicacion-con-burundanga_272132 and http://www.eluniversal.com/sucesos/33957/murio-el-asistente-del-diputado-freddy-superlano-tras-intoxicacion-en-restaurante-colombiano and https://albertonews.com/nacionales/revelan-detalles-sobre-lo-ocurrido-con-el-diputado-superlano-y-su-primo-quien-murio-de-envenenamiento/ and https://maduradas.com/grave-diputado-freddy-superlano-hospitalizado-emergencia-tras-resultar-envenenado-cucuta-asistente-murio-acto/ (See issue above with Carla Angola, we need very high quality sources before we add this story because of salacious implications.)

    Washington post has BLP-safe text Venezuelan opposition looks to foreign allies for further steps to unseat Maduro SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

    The opposition, meanwhile, said one of its leaders — Freddy Superlano — had been poisoned with a drug called “burundanga” in the Colombian border city of Cúcuta and remained hospitalized. Superlano’s assistant had died of the same poison. The opposition called for an investigation into the poisonings, while making no claims on who the culprits were.

    I suggest we avoid the salacious detail in other sources, and stick to that (BLP requires the highest quality sources). The source is in the article now, using the named ref UnseatMaduro. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

25. Border closed, militarized, camps set up for Venezuelans who were stranded on Colombian side of border due to closure.

Maybe we should copy some of the info that is already in 2019 shipping of humanitarian aid to Venezuela article? --MaoGo (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

That looks to me like the kind of unfortunate, premature split of the topic done without discussion (like the split proposed below), so that we end up with uncoordinated overlapping content, and this. I am going to focus on adding quality information here, and if we later need to split this content to that article, someone can deal with the overlap problem that is created when articles are split too soon. MaoGo, if there is well-sourced information there, please bring it over, but I've noticed that when people in these articles copy text from one article to another, they are rarely correctly attributing the source in edit summary, which is required by Wikipedia policy (you must say what article you copied from in the edit summary). Also, we should be adding the highest quality sources, which we are only getting today (I don't know if that article uses the best English language sources). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Tried it once, won't be copying from that article again. It is much faster to start from recent, high quality sources, and do it right. There's a complete mess in there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

That was a haul. I am pronouncing this section  Done (which means I am tired and if anyone want to add anything else, up to them!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The day after

Washington Post has a very good summary, that could be used to source a good deal of the 23 Feb content (list above):

• "Venezuelan opposition looks to foreign allies for further steps to unseat Maduro". Washington Post. 24 February 2019. Retrieved 24 February 2019. {{cite news}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)

It mentions that today will be another fast-moving news day. I have put an introduction into the 23 February section, using this source with named ref UnseatMaduro, in case others want to work in more text from this source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)