This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

International relations C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Latin America C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Latin America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latin AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Latin AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Latin AmericaLatin America articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Venezuela C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Venezuela, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Venezuela on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VenezuelaWikipedia:WikiProject VenezuelaTemplate:WikiProject VenezuelaVenezuela articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The style would be similar to this for example [1].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Troika of tyranny quote

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

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

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

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

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

This article seems to have a significant bias towards Guiadó's positions.

I don't have the time currently to go through every section of the article, so I will just use one section as an example, the Basis for Challenge section. At the time of this comment, there are three sentences in that section, and one source cited. The source that is cited is an editorial in the Washington Post that was written by Juan Guiadó himself.

The first sentence states that Article 233 of the Venezuelan constitution establishes that the leader of the National Assembly is to hold office in the absence of a legitimate president. While I don't actually know what the Socialist Party of Venezuala's position is on this, I did go and read 233, which covers what should happen if the president dies, is removed by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, becomes permanently disabled, abandons his post, or is recalled by popular vote. If any of those things happen before the president's inauguration, the leader of the National Assembly acts as interim president and a public vote must occur within 30 days to elect a new president. If one of those things happens after the inauguration, the Vice President holds office instead. An illegitimate election isn't any of the things listed in Article 233, so that is probably Guiadó's interpretation of the constitution that is being presented here as the facts on what Article 233 says.

I don't think the second sentence violates NPOV, since it seems to be a pretty accurate reading of Article 333.

The third sentence is what seems to most violate the NPOV. "Further, he argues that both the national and international community must unite behind a transitional government that will guarantee humanitarian aid, bring the restoration of Venezuela's rule of law, and have the ability to hold democratic elections." This sentence doesn't seem to serve a purpose other than to promote Guiadó's position. It's an unnecessary sentence directly stating Guiadó's argument for the transitional government in a positive way.

No opposing point of view is mentioned in this paragraph, and on reading the article as a whole, it looks like there are a number of instances where the point of view of Guiadó is presented, sometimes as fact, and the opinion of Maduro's party is not mentioned.

The views of the Socialist Party of Venezuela and countries that support Venezuela are certainly a minority view globally. Most Western mainstream media seems to support Guiadó's position as well. But due to the controversy and factual disputes surrounding the crisis, spending the majority of the article explaining Guiadó's position does not fairly represent both sides of the controversy.

This is especially concerning, since the Censorship section notes that several media outlets have actually accused Wikipedia of taking sides with Guiadó when Wikipedia called him the president of Venezuela on his page. In a possible additional example of violation of NPOV, this article presents that pro-Guiadó bias as "taking sides with either group," when all three sources are specifically mentioning Wikipedia naming Juan Guiadó as president.

A completely neutral article on the presidential crisis may be very difficult to achieve, since it's harder to find information, at least in English (my Spanish is poor, so I haven't done much research in that language) about the opinions and positions of Maduro's party. Whitevelcro (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the basis for challenge section shouldn't have anything opposing Guaidó in it, given it is just explaining why he challenged Maduro, so none of that needed there. I believe the statements regarding contributions are quoted from Venezuelan sources, so your reading of the article may not take from it what the Venezuelan people understand.

Users are slowly working on trying to even content, but a lot of info about Maduro comes from very obviously pro-Maduro sources, so RS can't be established.

I think you misunderstand the Censorship section - it notes that adding the info was good, that people who support Maduro edit warred, and that Venezuelan state media trying to suppress the opposition blocked Wikipedia to present an image of unified support for Maduro. There's a whole contextual history. I'll assume you know enough about it, with a little reminder that it's generally accepted Maduro's supporters tell a lot of lies. RE your claim that a certain phrase is not neutral - I picked that phrase up directly from sources and the Spanish wikipedia, so this article isn't stating anything but what sources say.

Adding to that, what you call the "POV of Guaidó" can, with caution, be assessed as closer to fact than other sources. Kingsif (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My comment on the "basis for challenge" section is that it doesn't seem to me to be factually accurate based on my own reading of the Venezuelan Constitution, and is only showing the pro-Guiadó interpretation of the constitution. I went ahead and looked for some other sources on that fact in particular, and there is significant factual dispute on the constitutional argument Guiadó is making. For example, this article from a Harvard professor of law who states that, while Maduro was not elected in a fair election, Article 233 does not give Guiadó power to declare himself the president.

The neutrality of sources is not necessary for the sources to be reliable. As the wikipedia recommendation on neutrality states, "Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say." It is not our job as Wikipedia editors to determine which source is factual, but to "fairly represent [...] all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view."

The claims that "it's generally accepted Maduro's supporters tell a lot of lies" and that the pro-opposition view "can, with caution, be assessed as closer to fact than other sources" are not our role as Wikipedians to determine or assert. While we shouldn't pretend that Maduro's party is correct or that their claims are accepted by the majority of nations, people, or Venezuelans, we also need to do our best to present them fairly and proportionally, and try not to assert things as fact that are disputed by a significant minority. Rather, we should clarify the perspective from which the facts are presented and mention if a fact is in question. This isn't particularly simple to figure out, and it will take a lot of effort, but this is why I'm focusing primarily on raising awareness that the neutrality is in dispute, so we can double check our claims and avoid an Anglo-American bias Whitevelcro (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, okay - as long as sources of questionable reliability and neutrality have a note saying they're a "pro-X". I'll also look to clarifying in the Basis for Challenge section, it should mention other constitutional elements, anyway. Kingsif (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curious that, I see non-neutral writing in both directions (pro-Guaido and pro-Maduro), but most of that is due to poor sourcing, oversourcing, and plain poor writing and bad word choices. So, as happens with most Venezuelan articles, this one is probably going to continue with tags because it is overburdened with unnecessary detail that should be covered in other places (attempts to persuade the reader rather than link out to other articles where the same material is covered), and overburdened with multiple sources on plain statements that would do better with one high quality source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela articles typically need a style edit, when its settled down, ideally. Kingsif (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You expect neutrality in a serious current event that gets edited every few minutes? Bohbye (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that This article seems to have a significant bias towards Guiadó's positions. we need to balance this page. KingTintin (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I propose to merge Guaido challenge into this page, with its own section. I think that the content in the article doesn't warrant its own article at this point, but more usage and the nature of being viral, especially if/when it morphs away from the topic of this crisis, may later give reason for a separate page. Kingsif (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsif, thank you for the speedy work; perhaps we have never met?

1. Notability on its own is met, even though the challenge has been going less than two hours.
2. I am still working on it; you tagged it literally after one edit, my first pass.
3. See also ¿Por qué no te callas? The same arguments were made the first day there; yes, as you indicate, it is likely to grow. With me working on it, it will grow, and with reliable sources. Please have a look at Bespoke and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bespoke.
4. I cannot see a valid reason why you can't link it into the relevant articles. Nor do I see why we would burden this article, that will become very large, with a humorous meme.

Or perhaps I should continue my hiatus, better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simply opening the topic for discussion. I would currently support a merge based on the direct connection - the reason for the "meme" is a conflict of the crisis. I do, yes, recognize that the nature of the internet may morph it into something that should have its own article, but that could take a while. Kingsif (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I hope that you also realize that if you did such a speedy action on a new user, it is unlikely they would come back. Fortunately, as I've shown you above, this is not my first rodeo, but nonetheless, that was pretty rude after only one edit. I have little inclination to develop the article further now, although scores of sources will appear tomorrow with more content-- will see what tomorrow brings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been nothing but polite, I believe your words are completely unwarranted - is it "rude" to suggest a merge with perfectly valid reasoning? Not at all. Please note that I didn't know there had only been one edit, but you had at that point already mentioned the article's existence on Guaidó's talk page and I immediately thought it should probably be merged, for now. I know you're not new, and I expect new users would be happy to engage in conversation. Kingsif (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you offer, please, some policy-based reason for this proposed merge? The article meets notability, this article is already suffering from bloat, and that topic doesn't really fit with this article (other than a one-line mention).

Like most articles in the Venezuelan suite, this article already has text repeated across multiple articles (most Venezuelan articles are written as if the purpose of wikilinks is not understood, but more likely because everyone is trying to shove their own POV into every article, so they re-write everything rather use wikilinks). And it doesn't strike me as useful to have more than a one-line wikilink to a humourous meme in an otherwise very serious topic.

Also, if you didn't know there had only been one edit, might I suggest you consider taking more time to investigate the history of articles before tagging them? I had put up the start so I would have the refs available for expansion, and was next creating redirects, tagging the talk page, notifying other pages, and doing all the sorts of things responsible editors do, and I came back minutes later to find an immediate tag. I hope you can understand how such actions diminish motivation to continue developing a topic; why would an editor develop a topic that someone else wants to merge away, especially when that someone else has no policy-based reason for doing so? When you saw that I had mentioned the article on Gauido's talk page, right there, you had the opportunity to discuss instead of tag.

More significantly, might you consider that this kind of editing is why editors capable of cleaning up Venezuelan articles, with Wikipedia and real-world knowledge of Venezuela, decide not to bother?

Now, someone added uncited text today, so I cleaned it up and worked in more text from English-language sources, because I dearly hate for articles I start to be trashed with uncited text, unreliable sources, and POV. Since no one yet has supported your request to merge a notable article into this (bloated) article, might I politely request you to remove the tag, or let me know how long you want to leave it? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're suggesting I need to read out a policy script for thinking a merge would be appropriate, but that's not necessary when common sense can be used: 1. short article (I am under no obligation to investigate how many edits have been made, and number of edits is rarely reflective of quality/value/etc. anyway) 2. at the moment, it is only significant in the context of another article. So whilst it is notable and cited, it may be better suited elsewhere. In any case, I simply wanted to facilitate discussion, as I said in my first reply, because I thought there may be grounds to merge. You were being a responsible article creator, which I thank you for. However, returning to a merge tag I myself would not be deterred - I'd participate in discussion and may even be encouraged more to expand. I'm not responsible for how you react to something that is a perfectly reasonable, even expected, action. I don't think "this kind of editing" (adding tags?) makes editors with knowledge of Venezuela want to not bother - it's just another part of Wikipedia. You seem to be taking this oddly personally? - correct me if that's wrong, I don't mean to offend.

You're right that nobody has supported by merge request. Instead, they have implicitly suggested for the page to be deleted. Since you haven't actually engaged in discussion about why it shouldn't be merged - simply telling me it shouldn't and asking for the tag to be removed - I don't see why the tag should go. It might also be stopping other editors from adding an AfD proposal. Kingsif (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What if we merge Guaido challenge with Juan Guaidó? --MaoGo (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But ... why? It meets notability, can still be expanded, and got 7,500 hits yesterday. What is the urge to overburden articles with excessive text, rather than using wikilinks? Guiado challenge is already worked in to Juan Guaido, with the one sentence it merits. Why burden the BLP with four paragraphs about a comical meme? The problem across the board with Venezuelan articles is they are too long, because they don't link out to sub-topics appropriately. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Merge This article is only two weeks old and is already up to 100kb. The last thing it needs is a merge. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, this article is prompt to loss its longterm notability. Similar to Block of Wikipedia in Venezuela article that is now abandoned, I fear this article could be rapidly abandoned too. Let's merge it while it is still short. --MaoGo (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with this kind of logic for merge, and have never seen it at AfD either. As an example, see ¿Por qué no te callas?; it is 11 years old, I have not abandoned it, and what would be the difference if I did? It's not going to change or deteriorate. (I am still following and maintaining Featured Articles I wrote in 2006-- gawd I must be old!)

Could you steer me towards a guideline or policy page that mentions "longterm notability"? The only reference I can find to long at WP:NN is that we have requirements to help us avoid long bloated articles, which is the road this one is headed down, and will be even more so, if we add other content to it. Also, the article that is more likely to be abandoned is this one. WP:SIZE is a good read. WP:MOSLINK is also helpful in understanding why Wikipedia uses Wikilinka.

Yes, it is too bad that Block of Wikipedia in Venezuela is now abandoned; that happens to too many Venezuelan articles, partly because they are too bloated with verbosity making them difficult to edit. THIS article is the one more likely to end up abandoned, because one way or another, this "crisis" will be resolved eventually, and no one will care if Laos supported Maduro or not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The longterm notability is the question of does a fad or media moment seem like it would actually be notable outside of its two weeks of popularity. So it seems notable when it's suddenly and briefly popular, but in a year or so if someone comes across it they may very well think that it was never notable and just a small internet fad someone made a page for. Compared to PQNTC?, that moment had big international impact and still is known and used. (And I haven't "abandoned" the Wikipedia block page, I translated the Spanish page and have seen no other news on it, can't exactly update). Kingsif (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think Kigsif explained it well, there may be not a guideline for longterm notability but it is an argument like any other when dealing with a merge, Guaido challenge may be sourced but it notability is still low to be memorable. Go to a platform like Reddit for comparison, which is known for being a large meme-driven website, it has like 5 post about Guaido challenge and none with over 200 upvotes. I know this is not enough as source to disprove the challenge completely but it is a demonstration of how unnoticeable this challenge seems to be. About Block of Wikipedia in Venezuela, the block seems to have ended about the 18th January. Also Laos position may be important for future relations between Laos and Venezuela, Guaido challenge does not seem to have the same weight. --MaoGo (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the hatnote for this discussion: regardless of whether this content is in this article or another one (and I don't have time to care which is more correct) it's INAPPROPRIATE to promote a hashtag challenge regarding a current geopolitical event here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it was promoting discussion, not the actual thing. How else would you suggest alerting people to this buried thread? Kingsif (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go through the talk thread and archive everything about an infobox (prior to the current one) or other news updates that have been updated. That should make it easier to find this. Beyond that, you can find consensus for this material the same that we would any other material. There's no banner to merge "US Press conference on sanction, January 28 2019" here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Power~enwiki, thank you, and I completely agree. This article, about a serious world event with grave consequences, is on the main page, and the #Gauidochallenge was a humorous diversion for a very anxious, depressed and traumatized people, who are watching as scores of their people are killed and imprisoned. Having this article tagged with a humourous meme, while on the main page, is offensive, disrespectful and unnecessary. It promoted no discussion, no edits, and no logical reason for the proposed merge was ever provided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After a bunch of procedural stuff, I'm here to comment on the merits here on including this information. Yes, social media's impact here is relevant. The "Guiado challenge" seems like a soap opera that I can't follow, and the description appears to be pushing a specific narrative of controversial current events. It appears to have a bunch of noise on Twitter/Instagram, including a few United States politicians (Marco Rubio). Rubio's opinion is as unnecessary here as Bernie Sanders's is. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Power~enwiki an interesting part of the soap opera is that the Russians got involved to make fun of Rubio for what they called him getting involved in coup-mongering while people were dying! But by that point I had lost interest in developing or expanding the article. (Rubio is not in the article; once every celebrity under the sun started participating in the challenge, I removed mention of any individual, to avoid a gynormous trivia list.) I really do not care if it is merged, deleted, or anything; I did care that a tag of little consequence was trashing this article while it was on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• CARICOM seeking urgent meeting with UN Secretary General
• STATEMENT BY HEADS OF GOVERNMENT OF CARICOM ON VENEZUELA
• CARICOM: Heads of gov’t will not interfere in Venezuela’s politics

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

CARICOM seems like an organization that should be mentioned, at least in the short term. I'm not sure what there is to say about their role though. [2] is their own statement of actions. In my opinion, having a delegation meet with the UN Secretary-General is a high-profile way of doing nothing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued edit warring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PDVSA: also apparently support Maduro

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Meanwhile, the Minister of Energy of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, Mustapha Guitouni said that his visit to the Venezuelan territory is to express the support of the Algerian government to the Venezuelan government and continue to expand bilateral relations." - Published 09 Jan 2019 http://mppre.gob.ve/en/2019/01/09/foreign-minister-arreaza-russia-belarus-algeria/ Nebakin (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nebakin: Let's wait for a more reliable source, preferebly one from Algeria releasing a statement itself. I will see if I can find one.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I will add, this occurred shortly before the crisis began. Positions may have changed since then.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The latest official statements that I can see from Algeria's Ministry of Foreign Affairs is from 2016. See here. We can wait to see if more comes in the following days.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The OAS is claimed to recognize Guaidó in the table here, but a proposal to do exactly that was actually voted down 18 countries to 16 according to [3]. --84.113.220.111 (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

that's a Cuban source, notoriously Maduro-biased. Better source needed. Kingsif (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An excuse, how shocking! RBL2000 (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use a source from dictatorship countries !! 73.158.103.169 (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you... you need a better source... Wikipedia requires it... Kingsif (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You... You need to differentiate between two people. It is easy, put some effort in it. Read the username. Wikipedia requires it yet here we are twitter being used as source, double standards and hypocrisy ^[1] RBL2000 (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)you... you need to be able to identify a joke. Were the ellipses not enough? Harry Potter? No? OK. Hey, if it's the tweet of a reliable person, it's probably more reliable than some state media. Kingsif (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The actual Wikipedia policies are that sources are needed to prove what is stated on the page, no citation is actually needed to remove a false and unsourced statement. The source that is present on the page states that OAS voted against recognizing Maduro. But now in a later vote they also voted against recognizing Guaidó. Nobody has provided a source that claims otherwise. Also note that I am the one who linked to the Cuban source, not RBL2000. --84.113.220.111 (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't have a Reliable Source, it effectively doesn't exist for Wikipedia. So there doesn't need to be a source that claims otherwise. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm saying you need a reliable source. Kingsif (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is making a claim: It claims that OAS recognizes Guaidó. There is no source for that claim. The claimed reference is actually dated from January 11, i.e., 12 days before Guaidó even self-proclaimed himself "interim president", and the name "Guaidó" does not appear a single time in that reference. Hence, the claim is unsourced and must be removed from the page, independently of whether you consider Radio Havana Cuba a reliable source or not. --84.113.220.111 (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! It seems we were talking across purposes, misunderstanding. Will review source and remove if appropriate. Kingsif (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Update: checked sources - they denounce Maduro's reelection, they ask for recognition of Guaidó, and in a quick google the BBC reports the Almagro-on-behalf-of-OAS (which it says is OAS) support for Guaidó on 23 Jan. Kingsif (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can the OAS have recognized Guaidó on January 23 when the meeting on that subject was only held on January 24 according to OAS themselves [4]? -- 84.113.220.111 (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, your source is government-controlled media of a state apparently supporting the National Assembly. How is that a more objective source than government-controlled media of a state supporting Maduro? --84.113.220.111 (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC isn't state controlled, surprise! Even if it was, some states don't have oppressive regimes and actually support freedom of the press, so their media doesn't blindly write what their leader spouts. The BBC is the most neutral source of information there is, with their reports being neutral towards Venezuela, Maduro, and Guaidó. As for the date... I don't know. Unless Luis Almagro can suddenly time travel, he jumped the gun. The search for a source continues. Kingsif (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC goofed here, and The Guardian got it right. (That one goes in the record books.) Guaido does not have OAS support; he has the support of 16 OAS countries, but they failed to pass the resolution supporting him after Luis Almagro (OAS Secretary General) issues a premature tweet. The Guardian quotes the tweet; the BBC goofs. Almagro was speaking for himself, before the special session. But neither does Maduro have their support, as they specifically DID pass a resolution rejecting his legitimacy. See sources below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For such a topic - while it is current and controversial, the OAS itself is the best source as to their proceedings. The international press agencies (AP, Reuters) would also be fine. Twitter isn't enough. We can ignore it until there is such sourcing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion abounds; there are three separate issues. 1. Earlier, the OAS passed a resolution to NOT support Maduro.10 Jan 2. Later, 16 OAS countries supported him (Guaido), but they failed to pass a resolution to support Gauido,25 Jan although 3. Almagro does. [5] The article currently shows the OAS in support of Gauido, which is incorrect. But as happens with trying to present information in tables or infoboxes, it is a nuanced situation, because they reject Maduro's legitimacy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further, part of the problem here is that someone inaccurately rewrote a direct quote from The Guardian, here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has not yet been corrected, and the current statement is sourced to--for gosh sakes, people-- efectococuyo! And it is an 11 January source (before Guaido assumed the presidency) that discusses the earlier OAS vote. It does not even verify the text it is citing. [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article is still spreading the fake news that "OAS supports Guaidó", despite proof of the contrary. It looks like the semi-protection is being used deliberately as a means to protect the current POV bias of the article. --84.113.220.111 (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1089848060983693322 - I guess AFP takes seriously when Syriza the ruling party of Greece made public it supports Maduro yet certain individuals said in here its not valid. Also Mexico. RBL2000 (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please focus on content, not contributors. If you can't keep a neutral tone and keep making blanket accusations that everyone is being biased, I'll have to ask that you be topic-banned from editing this page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The case is that Syriza is one party, even if it is the leading party. If the Republicans said they supported Maduro, you couldn't assume that the US as a nation and government does, because there are other parties. Government, not party, positions are taken as confirmation. Kingsif (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greece hesitated in supporting EU statement involving Venezuela, Guaido complains about Greek support of Maduro as legitimate President of Venezuela. http://www.ekathimerini.com/237112/article/ekathimerini/news/venezuelas-guaido-expresses-concern-over-greek-position SYRIZA is the government, the support by SYRIZA to Maduro would have not been published without very leaders of SYRIZA that are in the government and are the government itself. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-47019347 77.217.233.160 (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support Maduro according to the independent

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/venezuela-nicolas-maduro-us-sanctions-alexis-tsipras-greece-support-a8751771.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.5 (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just mentions Tsipras, not whole government. Kingsif (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He and his party lead Greece, they are the government. Little to no mention is about current Polish government in media and elsewhere as government when its stated PiS did that or stated that. No need to mention the obvious, more often than not I see Trump or Republicans say, did, do that and not The US government. 77.217.233.160 (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support Guaidó

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is clear they're against interventionism and foreing powers meddling in Venezuelan politics. RBL2000 (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Sighs* You seem reasonable, So:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I already changed that yesterday, replacing "widely disputed" by "disputed by opposition and some countries". But I was reverted[7]. emijrp (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Cited,[8] and disagree with the OP. It is unsightly to overload a lead with citations, so here are a few more from ProQuest:

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

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

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

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

Since before the lock I wrote a bit on the constitutional basis of the interim government, citing this [9] authored by Guaidó himself, under "Basis of the Challenge". I missed adding a few key points, on what Guaidó and the National Assembly want. I think the Roadmap provided by the opposition is a quite clear indication of what they expressly want. Its listed quite clearly from this source:

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

@Simon1811: [10]? Our article ALBA doesn't say so. In fact, we probably should not select out any specific ALBA members without sources. --GRuban (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Please add the RASD under non-UN states

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

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

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

Can someone add the information with sources? Bohbye (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please add it as it is highly relevant to the topic

“We’re in conversation with major American companies now,” he said. “I think we’re trying to get to the same end result here. … It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies really invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela.”

Source: http://time.com/5516920/inside-john-boltons-month-long-p-r-campaign-against-venezuelas-government/

103.70.152.5 (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the Fox News discussion, Bolton explains how it will benefit both the United States and Venezuela. The statement comes after mentioning that the US would shift oil purchases to the Guaidó government. Taken out of context, it sounds like "oh, the US is looking for oil again". But the context is more like "oh, US investment that hasn't been able to been in Venezuela will benefit the Venezuelan people". I find it funny that you actually exclude the major point of the quote. After mentioning sending oil funds to Guaidó, Bolton says, "I think we’re trying to get to the same end result here. ... It'll make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies really invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela. It'd be good for the people of Venezuela, it'd be good for the people of the United States".

You can see the interview here and discuss it here. [Source] (see 7:15) ----ZiaLater (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guadio's people, not Venezuelan people. 212.15.177.105 (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Belarus

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

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

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

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

Russia

Lenta "Лукашенко встал на сторону Мадуро"

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

Izvestia "Лукашенко лично заявил Мадуро о своей поддержке"

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

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

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

Interfax "Лукашенко выразил поддержку президенту Венесуэлы Мадуро"

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

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

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

Kazakhstan

Tengri News "Лукашенко заявил, что поддерживает Мадуро"

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

Ukraine

Новое Время "Лукашенко поддержал Мадуро"

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

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

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

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

Neutral

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

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

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

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

Hinterlaces, is a notable polling organization and it opinion polls have been reported on by multiple reliable sources. Wikpedia can report their poll results and then state that they are accused of supporting chavismo if neccessary.Simon1811 (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some users here only accept polls that show opinions against Maduro's government. They are a bit biased, at least. emijrp (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon1811: I already provided arguments in the previous edit summaries, but I'll copy them again anyways: "Hinterlaces is not a reliable pollster. Its director, Oscar Schemell [es], is a member of the Constituent Assembly and it consistently publishes results different from other pollsters, always favouring the government. Talk:2017 Venezuelan Constituent Assembly election#HinterlacesMore can be read here". My last edit summary also explained: "When a progovernment source (Venezuelanalysis) says "Pro-government pollsters, such as the company Hinterlaces give Maduro a 17 point advantage.", without quoting "accusations", this is as neutral as you can get. The ties of its director haven't been disputed either.". So far, none of these arguments have been rebutted. Also, please ping me next time so I can read the message.--Jamez42 (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon1811: Having a look into Bolton's statements sources, one can have a insight of the reliability of the source: "Trump’s hyper-militaristic National Security Adviser John Bolton spilled the beans in an interview on Fox Business", "the US government initiated a political coup attempt in Venezuela", "neoliberal capitalist opposition that has pledged to privatize state assets and welcome in corporate partnerships", "in a bid to fund his coup regime", "right-wing opposition". Not only is this incredibly biased, the article isn't even that long for the amount of epithets used, but it is also written as an opinion piece. Looking at the second source, finding califcatives such as "Embattled Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro" and "foreign-backed conspiracy", give the impression the article, again, is written as an opinion piece. Analyzing both cases, the statement is phrased in a way that a minority opinion is presented as a well established poing of view with weasel wording. ("This led to accusations") --Jamez42 (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WTheir statements are presented as mere opinions and not as facts, if they were presented as facts there would be a problem. I dont see the problem with noting statements made. Also please reply to the Hinterlaces section above. Simon1811 (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources have pointed out have America doesnt really care about restoring democracy to venezuela and only want to get access to their oil. This opinion is curiously missing from the article. It is the elephant in the room. Some sort of remarks noting the opinion should be included.Simon1811 (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable news sources, if they mention it at all, note that it's a mere opinion from either Maduro or socialist defenders in nations far from Venezuela, and that it has no evidence to support it. Why would Wikipedia note such a thing? Kingsif (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@Jamez42: Any revert of any content within the article in the same 24-hour period counts with respect to 3RR (even if it is not shown as a revert proper in the edit summary). For you, it would be these at least: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. For Simon1811, it would be these at least: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]. I may have missed some as there is a lot of intermediate edits. Impru20^talk 14:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

@Simon1811: Mexico, just like Uruguay, has advocated for a mediation and a dialogue between government and opposition; even if they recognize Maduro has the president, they shouldn't be listed as supporters of Maduro. This can also be seen in the "Vocal neutrality" section. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamez42: ok, no problem.Simon1811 (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "censorship" section talks about detained/deported journalists. I have read that the journalists didn't have the proper permissions. The Maduro's government position [29][30] isn't available in the current text. emijrp (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see any valid reasons why the government postition and explanation should not be included so I add it.Simon1811 (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The government frequently locks up innocent people for no reason, especially journalists - as long as you're noting that the government explanation is dubious at best should it be added. Kingsif (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Emijrp:@Simon1811: First, we shouldn't include tweets as references. Second, that doesn't explain the detention of Venezuelan journalists. If you listen to their declaration, when they were detained the guards didn't even know they were journalists because at the time they were not doing any coverage; the Venezuelan journalists were just showing the Chilean ones Caracas at night. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If they are from official accounts confirmed by twitter themselves I do not see the problem, in fact I have seen twitter used as a citation for Donald Trump statements on other articles.Simon1811 (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon1811: You could try answering to the rest of the arguments too. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Tweets can be used if from official sources, especially Donald Trump because... does he ever do anything not on twitter? In terms of accuracy, though, it seems clear that they were arrested arbitrarily - either for simply being a journalist or completely randomly. Maybe the government later found out that the Chilean journalists were not in the country with a valid journalist visa, which still isn't grounds for immediate deportation, but that is original research given the statements, with sources saying that A. they were arrested without a reason and B. they were deported for not having correct documents. Even assuming both are true, we can't know what happened in between (though Arreaza seems to be one of the more honest PSUV politicians - again, completely OR). Kingsif (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @Emijrp: @Simon1811: @Kingsif: @Jamez42: ----ZiaLater (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Emijrp: @Simon1811: @ZiaLater: @Jamez42: Reuters says that the journalists were accredited, working for EFE... Kingsif (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: The source states they were working for EFE, not that they complied with Venezuelan law.Simon1811 (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True. I know a thing about journalists and visas. You need to be both accredited (authorized to work in the position for any valid media - they were definitely accredited) and also have the correct visa, for working, for working specifically as a journalist, and for working specifically for the media you are accredited to. They could have slipped up there, but we don't know, since the statement only mentions accreditation, which we know they had (unless EFE are lying). Kingsif (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnik News is not a reliable source. The article only quotes Jorge Arreaza, who in turns quotes the Deputy Chairperson, who only states his support to the Venezuelan people and the president. It doesn't talk about legitimacy. Other outlets suggests the region has not pronounced itself about the situation: [31] I see this issue has been mentioned before in the talk page, so I wanted to bring it to the attention of other editors. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There may be other sources; the one on the page (reinstated a moment ago) is Sputnik, so I added the RS? tag - if we can't find an RS soon, remove it. Kingsif (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: There is this https://newsusaeveryday.com/the-venezuelan-foreign-ministry-the-african-union-has-supported-maduro/ Simon1811 (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon1811: That does not seem like the most reputable source either... ----ZiaLater (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon1811: The source only quotes Arreaza again. There doesn't seem to be a declaration from the African Union or a vote, like in other organizations. I should also point out that the article only has eight post views, and I suspect those are from the editors here. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaica Observer and Africa Times say that the African Union is neutral hasn't given a position. Kingsif (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your first source is from January 24 and I do not see were in the second source it states that. Could you quote it please?Simon1811 (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth paragraph: "The African Union, which sent electoral observers to Venezuela in May, also has no formal statement."

Note that I'm just providing sources with other statements, I'm not going to pass judgment on this one. Kingsif (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are some sources claiming that the Venezuelan media regulator CONATEL is censoring and closing radio programmes that critic Maduro and favour Guaidó openly. See example [32], should this be included? --MaoGo (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Just include sources, ideally multiple. Bohbye (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MaoGo: Yes, in the censorship section. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think anymore should be added (after this is added) that section is getting a bit hectic. Maybe it could be simplified.Simon1811 (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is not it covered in Social Media section? Just looking at Twitter overall the tweets have far more hearts/likes and retweets/share's than Guaido Challenge hashtag from the opposition, Hands Off Venezuela should be covered in Social Media section.

Most popular Guaido Challenge tweet: https://twitter.com/Diego_Arria/status/1089597908821917696

Most popular Hands Off Venezuela tweets:

https://twitter.com/medeabenjamin/status/1088500072898351110

https://twitter.com/ArielElyseGold/status/1090318903140593664

https://twitter.com/MikePrysner/status/1088701422110105600

https://twitter.com/nikiashton/status/1088303987248562176

Seriously people, how could anyone miss something that is considerably if not way more popular? RBL2000 (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]