This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 29 June 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis to Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis. The result of the discussion was moved. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis was copied or moved into List of individuals and entities sanctioned during the Venezuelan crisis with this edit on 2023-10-18. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | On 27 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
This edit summary is bordering on a personal attack, but more importantly, the content of the Lancet editorial is cherry-picked and misrepresented. Perhaps that is (only one) part of the very good reason the entire lot of edits was reverted (I saw other problems as well). I don't want to get into the middle of an edit war, but the gross misrepresentation of the Lancet's entire point needs correction to remove the considerable one-sided bias introduced. WMrapids, after you were reverted once, you should gain consensus before reinstating ... even more so in this case where the content added is so biased. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I plan to revert most with selective restorals of the good edits (which is VERY time consuming way to edit, and engaging talk for consensus building would be more expedient for all), for the following problems (at least), so that we can then discuss how to move forward from here rather than edit war. The problems in this series of edits are:
The points are numbered for discussion; please do. I believe we all acknowledge there are issues to be corrected, but edit warring is not the fastest way to progress. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
A subsequent UN report in 2021 would state that sanctions had worsened Venezuela's economic crisis( [6]): No, it did not. The report is not from the United Nations, but rather a special rapporteur, Alena Douhan, whose position is already covered in the Reactions section. A report from a rapporteur is not the same as the United Nations, which is a common mistake that has been discussed a lot in topics from Israel to Syria. We only need to remember Alfred de Zayas to see how unreliable and biased they can be.
Article did not say anything about "civil society"( [7]): It did, it specifically mentions the position of non-governmental organizations.
Opposition politician opinion. Not relevant.( [8]): David Smolansky is currently the Commissioner for Venezuelan Migrants and Refugees for the Organization of American States. If there's anyone that can speak about the refugee crisis and its reasons, it is him.
Continued at #Reactions section rewrite. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Starting with JArthur1984's suggestion above, how about:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Continued at #Reactions section rewrite. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Continued at #The Lancet 2. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
We have these footnotes; both Weisbrot and Hausmann. Remove both or keep both ?
Continued at #Reactions section rewrite. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
The lead now has no mention of later reports on the effects of the sanctions, but I suggest holding off on figuring out that wording 'til we have cleaned up the Reactions section. (That is, pls don't think I am ignoring that omission because I passed it over-- just believe it doesn't make sense to clean up a lead when a body is still evolving --- unless someone can suggest a brief, neutral sentence we might agree on regardless of the work needed in Reactions.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Could others please list updates needed, including sources (besides the obvious update to the 2023 partial release-- I'm still looking for the most comprehensive source on exactly what was released, just haven't had the time to finish that ... ) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Update, @ JArthur1984, NoonIcarus, and ReyHahn: I am still working on the entities (Items 4 through 7 above, and the Swiss evasion), but I believe I am caught up on all individual sanctions. I reviewed all US Treasury press releases, found a list of all Canadian sanctions and cross-checked against it, found a list of EU/UK sanctions and cross-checked against it, and think I'm updated on Swiss. Did Colombia relax entry bans on anyone? Could you all glance at the individual sanctions to see if you notice anyone missing? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
@ JArthur1984, NoonIcarus, and ReyHahn: My apologies for the false alarm earlier; I do think I've gotten everything I can find now, and would appreciate review towards identifying anything missing. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
In this edit of United States involvement in regime change in Latin America, multiple sources say that the sanctions by the Trump administration were enacted to push for regime change. How should we include this in the article? WMrapids ( talk) 18:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
During the administration of President Donald Trump, sanctions were increased towards Venezuela in regime change efforts to oust Maduro.SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
"in regime change efforts against Maduro"? WMrapids ( talk) 19:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
So ... and again ... rapid-fire editing has moved beyond what I can keep up with, especially while iPad editing from hotspot. I'll come back to this one when I'm on a real computer. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
"the US specifically made regime change efforts through the sanctions". Any reason why this is continually removed? WMrapids ( talk) 04:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I am copying this discussion from the archive, because I just saw the question for me in my messages:
Why is the discussion in The Lancet not included in the entry? The Lancet is one of the WP:RS specifically cited in WP:MEDRS. Nbauman ( talk) 22:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
First, I want to reply to @SandyGeorgia's comment that MEDRS doesn't apply, and that "The Lancet editors are going outside their normal medical realm". This is a common misconception, which was extensively addressed when the National Rifle Association told doctors to "stick to their wheelhouse". Doctors who treated automobile injuries realized that the underlying problem was automotive design, politics and legislation (See Unsafe at Any Speed). I believe (and most medical journals believe) that anything that requires medical expertise, such as mass starvation or nuclear war, is within the normal medical realm, and the effects of sanctions falls under the medical specialty of public health. The Lancet in particular makes a point of reporting on sociopolitical matters. See The Lancet generally and [26] "Political controversies" specifically. The editorials are peer-reviewed, they regularly publish opposing opinions in letters and editorials, they retract mistakes, they were listed as a core medical journal in the Brandon-Hill list, and so it's more reliable than most of the other sources used in the entry. I used to read The Lancet every week for years, and use it as a source for my own work. (And to anticipate the common criticisms, The Lancet, like most medical journals, doesn't claim to be publishing "the truth"; they merely claim to do the best job they can of applying standard methods of fact-checking and scientific publishing to each manuscript.)
Second, as for #Lancet editorial misrepresented, I think it summarizes the editorial reasonably well, but I don't think anyone could summarize a 350-word article in a 50-word snippit. If I were writing it, I would quote the nut paragraph from The Lancet. I think a coherent essay is more useful than a paragraph of snippits (although the snippits are a useful bibliography). But I'm not writing it.
(I do think it should be rewritten in compliance with WP:SAID, however.)
Third, as for the specific Lancet article I'm referring to, I was actually referring to the coverage in general. Search PubMed for ("lancet"[Journal]) AND ("venezuela"[Title]) (try https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%28%22lancet%22%5BJournal%5D%29+AND+%28%22venezuela%22%5BTitle%5D%29&sort=pubdate) for about 2 dozen articles, most of which are relevant to the sanctions. Note that they have a wide range of viewpoints, including something for everyone to disagree with. You can also search for ("bmj"[Journal]) AND (venezuela[Title]). I haven't tried NEJM or JAMA. Nbauman ( talk) 19:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
"Editorials are the voice of each Lancet journal, raising awareness on clinical and global health topics and health-related matters. These are written in-house by the journal’s editorial team and are signed by the journal (eg, The Lancet weekly signs “The Lancet”). Editorials are not externally peer reviewed."The scope of MEDRS is well described at the explanatory essay Wikipedia:Biomedical information. The text current citing The Lancet editorial does not contain biomedical information: "food and medicine shortages" are something subject to general reporting standards.
The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky ( talk) 15:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis → International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENT. Sources predominantly use the term of "international sanctions" due to their scope and that they include those issued by the European Union ( [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]), including by references used in this article, and the convention extends to articles such as International sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War, International sanctions during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, International sanctions during apartheid, International sanctions against Iran, International sanctions against Iraq, International sanctions against Afghanistan, International sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, International sanctions against North Korea and International sanctions against Syria. NoonIcarus ( talk) 11:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 ( talk) 15:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
JArthur1984 added text that explains Ricardo Hausmann was an appointee of Juan Guaido when he wrote the opinion. Readers need to understand that Hausmann had just received a position working for the U.S.-supported Venezuelan opposition when he wrote the opinion placing blame on the government rather than on U.S. sanctions. Bobfrombrockley removed the source saying, "that's synth; this is in the source already so avoids synth". I don't agree that it is WP:SYNTH. I don't see any conclusion that is draw other than we better understand who the opinion is coming from.
Bobfrombrockley also rewrote the language describing Hausmann to match the description found in Hausmann's opinion piece--a description probably written by Hausmann himself--that identifies him as primarily and academic and only an "advisor" to Guaido leaving out his far more significant involvement with Guaido.
I restored the language as added by JArthur1984. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 17:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 29 June 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis to Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis. The result of the discussion was moved. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis was copied or moved into List of individuals and entities sanctioned during the Venezuelan crisis with this edit on 2023-10-18. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | On 27 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
This edit summary is bordering on a personal attack, but more importantly, the content of the Lancet editorial is cherry-picked and misrepresented. Perhaps that is (only one) part of the very good reason the entire lot of edits was reverted (I saw other problems as well). I don't want to get into the middle of an edit war, but the gross misrepresentation of the Lancet's entire point needs correction to remove the considerable one-sided bias introduced. WMrapids, after you were reverted once, you should gain consensus before reinstating ... even more so in this case where the content added is so biased. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I plan to revert most with selective restorals of the good edits (which is VERY time consuming way to edit, and engaging talk for consensus building would be more expedient for all), for the following problems (at least), so that we can then discuss how to move forward from here rather than edit war. The problems in this series of edits are:
The points are numbered for discussion; please do. I believe we all acknowledge there are issues to be corrected, but edit warring is not the fastest way to progress. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
A subsequent UN report in 2021 would state that sanctions had worsened Venezuela's economic crisis( [6]): No, it did not. The report is not from the United Nations, but rather a special rapporteur, Alena Douhan, whose position is already covered in the Reactions section. A report from a rapporteur is not the same as the United Nations, which is a common mistake that has been discussed a lot in topics from Israel to Syria. We only need to remember Alfred de Zayas to see how unreliable and biased they can be.
Article did not say anything about "civil society"( [7]): It did, it specifically mentions the position of non-governmental organizations.
Opposition politician opinion. Not relevant.( [8]): David Smolansky is currently the Commissioner for Venezuelan Migrants and Refugees for the Organization of American States. If there's anyone that can speak about the refugee crisis and its reasons, it is him.
Continued at #Reactions section rewrite. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Starting with JArthur1984's suggestion above, how about:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Continued at #Reactions section rewrite. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Continued at #The Lancet 2. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
We have these footnotes; both Weisbrot and Hausmann. Remove both or keep both ?
Continued at #Reactions section rewrite. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
The lead now has no mention of later reports on the effects of the sanctions, but I suggest holding off on figuring out that wording 'til we have cleaned up the Reactions section. (That is, pls don't think I am ignoring that omission because I passed it over-- just believe it doesn't make sense to clean up a lead when a body is still evolving --- unless someone can suggest a brief, neutral sentence we might agree on regardless of the work needed in Reactions.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Could others please list updates needed, including sources (besides the obvious update to the 2023 partial release-- I'm still looking for the most comprehensive source on exactly what was released, just haven't had the time to finish that ... ) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Update, @ JArthur1984, NoonIcarus, and ReyHahn: I am still working on the entities (Items 4 through 7 above, and the Swiss evasion), but I believe I am caught up on all individual sanctions. I reviewed all US Treasury press releases, found a list of all Canadian sanctions and cross-checked against it, found a list of EU/UK sanctions and cross-checked against it, and think I'm updated on Swiss. Did Colombia relax entry bans on anyone? Could you all glance at the individual sanctions to see if you notice anyone missing? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
@ JArthur1984, NoonIcarus, and ReyHahn: My apologies for the false alarm earlier; I do think I've gotten everything I can find now, and would appreciate review towards identifying anything missing. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
In this edit of United States involvement in regime change in Latin America, multiple sources say that the sanctions by the Trump administration were enacted to push for regime change. How should we include this in the article? WMrapids ( talk) 18:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
During the administration of President Donald Trump, sanctions were increased towards Venezuela in regime change efforts to oust Maduro.SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
"in regime change efforts against Maduro"? WMrapids ( talk) 19:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
So ... and again ... rapid-fire editing has moved beyond what I can keep up with, especially while iPad editing from hotspot. I'll come back to this one when I'm on a real computer. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
"the US specifically made regime change efforts through the sanctions". Any reason why this is continually removed? WMrapids ( talk) 04:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I am copying this discussion from the archive, because I just saw the question for me in my messages:
Why is the discussion in The Lancet not included in the entry? The Lancet is one of the WP:RS specifically cited in WP:MEDRS. Nbauman ( talk) 22:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
First, I want to reply to @SandyGeorgia's comment that MEDRS doesn't apply, and that "The Lancet editors are going outside their normal medical realm". This is a common misconception, which was extensively addressed when the National Rifle Association told doctors to "stick to their wheelhouse". Doctors who treated automobile injuries realized that the underlying problem was automotive design, politics and legislation (See Unsafe at Any Speed). I believe (and most medical journals believe) that anything that requires medical expertise, such as mass starvation or nuclear war, is within the normal medical realm, and the effects of sanctions falls under the medical specialty of public health. The Lancet in particular makes a point of reporting on sociopolitical matters. See The Lancet generally and [26] "Political controversies" specifically. The editorials are peer-reviewed, they regularly publish opposing opinions in letters and editorials, they retract mistakes, they were listed as a core medical journal in the Brandon-Hill list, and so it's more reliable than most of the other sources used in the entry. I used to read The Lancet every week for years, and use it as a source for my own work. (And to anticipate the common criticisms, The Lancet, like most medical journals, doesn't claim to be publishing "the truth"; they merely claim to do the best job they can of applying standard methods of fact-checking and scientific publishing to each manuscript.)
Second, as for #Lancet editorial misrepresented, I think it summarizes the editorial reasonably well, but I don't think anyone could summarize a 350-word article in a 50-word snippit. If I were writing it, I would quote the nut paragraph from The Lancet. I think a coherent essay is more useful than a paragraph of snippits (although the snippits are a useful bibliography). But I'm not writing it.
(I do think it should be rewritten in compliance with WP:SAID, however.)
Third, as for the specific Lancet article I'm referring to, I was actually referring to the coverage in general. Search PubMed for ("lancet"[Journal]) AND ("venezuela"[Title]) (try https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%28%22lancet%22%5BJournal%5D%29+AND+%28%22venezuela%22%5BTitle%5D%29&sort=pubdate) for about 2 dozen articles, most of which are relevant to the sanctions. Note that they have a wide range of viewpoints, including something for everyone to disagree with. You can also search for ("bmj"[Journal]) AND (venezuela[Title]). I haven't tried NEJM or JAMA. Nbauman ( talk) 19:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
"Editorials are the voice of each Lancet journal, raising awareness on clinical and global health topics and health-related matters. These are written in-house by the journal’s editorial team and are signed by the journal (eg, The Lancet weekly signs “The Lancet”). Editorials are not externally peer reviewed."The scope of MEDRS is well described at the explanatory essay Wikipedia:Biomedical information. The text current citing The Lancet editorial does not contain biomedical information: "food and medicine shortages" are something subject to general reporting standards.
The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky ( talk) 15:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis → International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENT. Sources predominantly use the term of "international sanctions" due to their scope and that they include those issued by the European Union ( [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]), including by references used in this article, and the convention extends to articles such as International sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War, International sanctions during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, International sanctions during apartheid, International sanctions against Iran, International sanctions against Iraq, International sanctions against Afghanistan, International sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, International sanctions against North Korea and International sanctions against Syria. NoonIcarus ( talk) 11:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 ( talk) 15:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
JArthur1984 added text that explains Ricardo Hausmann was an appointee of Juan Guaido when he wrote the opinion. Readers need to understand that Hausmann had just received a position working for the U.S.-supported Venezuelan opposition when he wrote the opinion placing blame on the government rather than on U.S. sanctions. Bobfrombrockley removed the source saying, "that's synth; this is in the source already so avoids synth". I don't agree that it is WP:SYNTH. I don't see any conclusion that is draw other than we better understand who the opinion is coming from.
Bobfrombrockley also rewrote the language describing Hausmann to match the description found in Hausmann's opinion piece--a description probably written by Hausmann himself--that identifies him as primarily and academic and only an "advisor" to Guaido leaving out his far more significant involvement with Guaido.
I restored the language as added by JArthur1984. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 17:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)