This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Responses to the Venezuelan presidential 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:
Index,
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 20 days
![]() |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Guaido challenge was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 5 February 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Why arent Saint Lucia and Jamaica listed in the list support for National Asembly? They are colored light blue, so they should be listed, or color should be deleted to light grey. Did their governments made any statements on the matter!?
Colombia and Bolivia have had their colors changed recently due to official visits by their presidents to Venezuela. I have pointed out in the Spanish Wikipedia that the convention for countries that have supported Maduro in the crisis have been characterized for actively recognizing the 2018 presidential election results and vocally supporting Maduro, declaring among other things "against imperialist attacks" and the sort. As such, I have argued that official visits by Maduro and ambassador appointments cannot be compared to the original positions of support.
However, after a period of significant isolation, I could begin to be consider official visits to Venezuela not just a normalization of relations, but active support. This could be attributed partly to the proposing editor being annoyingly insistent, but i wanted to bring this point to this discussion since I believe this project has traditionally taken a lot of care with the verifiability of this article NoonIcarus ( talk) 00:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
@ David C. S.: Over several months, you have repeatedly attempted to make changes in both the map and the list regarding recognition during the presidential crisis. What makes this disruptive about this behavior is that you have insisted to apply these changes even when challenged and reasons have been provided to explain the opposition, without responding and ignoring any feedback, effectively engaging in a slow pace edit war to circumvent the three reverts rule. It should be noted that this pattern has not been limited to this article or to me, but also articles related to Bolivia and Peru, and with other editors as well. This is the reason why you have been blocked from editing in the article in the Spanish Wikipedia, as well as in Wikimedia Commons, and now you turn to make changes in English. It is incredibly frustrating for me to go over the reasons of why the recent changes are original research again, after explaining them to you countlessly and being ignored in return, but I feel that it is important to keep the community here on the loop:
The main problem with the changes that you have made is that they're unrelated to positions or statements of recognition, be them of Maduro or Guaidó, unlike recent changes that include the United States or Canada, that acknowledges the dissolution of the interim government but state that the National Assembly is the last remaining democratic body in the country. The sources that you have included only mention the appointment of Venezuelan ambassadors abroad, like in the case of Mexico ( [1]) and Spain ( [2]), or foreign ambassadors in Venezuela, like Portugal ( [3] [4]) and Uruguay ( [5]), but the problem is that this is unrelated to presidential recognition or legitimacy, and trying to conclude that is a case of original research ( WP:OR). Another issue with this is that some countries did not cut diplomatic ties with Maduro or removed diplomatic officials, meaning that they don't represent a change in position at all. You see the section Talk:Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis#United Nations, where I talk about this briefly. I should point out that even in the example of Uruguay, the article talks about an appointment that has not even been made official ( WP:CRYSTAL), and that one of the outlets that you have included, VozPópuli, is a right-wing newspaper whose article has the objetive of attacking the socialist government of Pedro Sánchez, but its content only mentions that Maduro's ambassadors where invited for a holiday celebration ( [6]): nothing new under the sun.
Even though it appears that JArthur1984 and I have differences in perspectives, we have been able to discuss through the disagreements and reach solutions. I believe that the discussion could probably benefit from you joining: maybe you could offer me your perspective on the issue, or perhaps we could work out an alternative that we can agree on. However, there must be a willingness to engage in discussion. Otherwise, I ask you to please stop insisting on the same changes. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 12:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Following this thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis, a proposal has emerged to consider state visits by heads of states (either in Venezuela, or by Maduro to other countries). This convention has already been applied in the case of Colombia and Bolivia (whose heads of state have visited Venezuela), but would include any other countries with similar conditions, such as Algeria. I mentioned that special consideration should be taken to international summits (for example, visits to the United Nations at the US, which doesn't recognize Maduro), but there shouldn't be a problem to comment on situations on a case to case basis if the need arrives. Pinging last participants, to know their thoughts: @ JArthur1984, David C. S., ReyHahn, and Ostalgia:
Would you agree to implement this change? NoonIcarus ( talk) 01:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
The issue of embassies is very useful to verify diplomatic recognition towards a government, since there are agreements, protocols and other rules in this regard. It is very simple (despite wanting to misrepresent): there are diplomatic relations and non-diplomatic official relations. Diplomatic relations are used in two governments that recognize each other, therefore, they can have diplomatic missions through embassies, headed by an ambassador, or at a lower level, a head of diplomatic mission. For non-diplomatic official relations, other figures are handled, as is the case of Taiwan, which is not recognized by the vast majority of countries, so it does not have embassies nor can it host them (referring to countries that do not officially recognize Taiwan). For this reason, all the countries that have diplomatic representation before the Maduro government officially recognize him as president, and for this reason they must be included in the list of recognition of the Maduro presidency. -- David C. S. ( talk) 03:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi NoonIcarus (a pleasure as always) and David C. S. (nice to meet you).
I've found this regarding Brazil This is in Spanish but I can make a full translation in case you ask me to. It basically says that Brazil will restart relations with Venezuela. Regards. -- CoryGlee ( talk) 09:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
As Guaidó is no longer "in office", shouldn't this map remains as it was on 5 January 2023? Did I miss something? If any other representative of Venezuelan opposition takes the place we will need a new "crisis article" and we could have another map if necessary. ReyHahn ( talk) 18:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Responses to the Venezuelan presidential 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:
Index,
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 20 days
![]() |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Guaido challenge was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 5 February 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Why arent Saint Lucia and Jamaica listed in the list support for National Asembly? They are colored light blue, so they should be listed, or color should be deleted to light grey. Did their governments made any statements on the matter!?
Colombia and Bolivia have had their colors changed recently due to official visits by their presidents to Venezuela. I have pointed out in the Spanish Wikipedia that the convention for countries that have supported Maduro in the crisis have been characterized for actively recognizing the 2018 presidential election results and vocally supporting Maduro, declaring among other things "against imperialist attacks" and the sort. As such, I have argued that official visits by Maduro and ambassador appointments cannot be compared to the original positions of support.
However, after a period of significant isolation, I could begin to be consider official visits to Venezuela not just a normalization of relations, but active support. This could be attributed partly to the proposing editor being annoyingly insistent, but i wanted to bring this point to this discussion since I believe this project has traditionally taken a lot of care with the verifiability of this article NoonIcarus ( talk) 00:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
@ David C. S.: Over several months, you have repeatedly attempted to make changes in both the map and the list regarding recognition during the presidential crisis. What makes this disruptive about this behavior is that you have insisted to apply these changes even when challenged and reasons have been provided to explain the opposition, without responding and ignoring any feedback, effectively engaging in a slow pace edit war to circumvent the three reverts rule. It should be noted that this pattern has not been limited to this article or to me, but also articles related to Bolivia and Peru, and with other editors as well. This is the reason why you have been blocked from editing in the article in the Spanish Wikipedia, as well as in Wikimedia Commons, and now you turn to make changes in English. It is incredibly frustrating for me to go over the reasons of why the recent changes are original research again, after explaining them to you countlessly and being ignored in return, but I feel that it is important to keep the community here on the loop:
The main problem with the changes that you have made is that they're unrelated to positions or statements of recognition, be them of Maduro or Guaidó, unlike recent changes that include the United States or Canada, that acknowledges the dissolution of the interim government but state that the National Assembly is the last remaining democratic body in the country. The sources that you have included only mention the appointment of Venezuelan ambassadors abroad, like in the case of Mexico ( [1]) and Spain ( [2]), or foreign ambassadors in Venezuela, like Portugal ( [3] [4]) and Uruguay ( [5]), but the problem is that this is unrelated to presidential recognition or legitimacy, and trying to conclude that is a case of original research ( WP:OR). Another issue with this is that some countries did not cut diplomatic ties with Maduro or removed diplomatic officials, meaning that they don't represent a change in position at all. You see the section Talk:Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis#United Nations, where I talk about this briefly. I should point out that even in the example of Uruguay, the article talks about an appointment that has not even been made official ( WP:CRYSTAL), and that one of the outlets that you have included, VozPópuli, is a right-wing newspaper whose article has the objetive of attacking the socialist government of Pedro Sánchez, but its content only mentions that Maduro's ambassadors where invited for a holiday celebration ( [6]): nothing new under the sun.
Even though it appears that JArthur1984 and I have differences in perspectives, we have been able to discuss through the disagreements and reach solutions. I believe that the discussion could probably benefit from you joining: maybe you could offer me your perspective on the issue, or perhaps we could work out an alternative that we can agree on. However, there must be a willingness to engage in discussion. Otherwise, I ask you to please stop insisting on the same changes. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 12:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Following this thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis, a proposal has emerged to consider state visits by heads of states (either in Venezuela, or by Maduro to other countries). This convention has already been applied in the case of Colombia and Bolivia (whose heads of state have visited Venezuela), but would include any other countries with similar conditions, such as Algeria. I mentioned that special consideration should be taken to international summits (for example, visits to the United Nations at the US, which doesn't recognize Maduro), but there shouldn't be a problem to comment on situations on a case to case basis if the need arrives. Pinging last participants, to know their thoughts: @ JArthur1984, David C. S., ReyHahn, and Ostalgia:
Would you agree to implement this change? NoonIcarus ( talk) 01:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
The issue of embassies is very useful to verify diplomatic recognition towards a government, since there are agreements, protocols and other rules in this regard. It is very simple (despite wanting to misrepresent): there are diplomatic relations and non-diplomatic official relations. Diplomatic relations are used in two governments that recognize each other, therefore, they can have diplomatic missions through embassies, headed by an ambassador, or at a lower level, a head of diplomatic mission. For non-diplomatic official relations, other figures are handled, as is the case of Taiwan, which is not recognized by the vast majority of countries, so it does not have embassies nor can it host them (referring to countries that do not officially recognize Taiwan). For this reason, all the countries that have diplomatic representation before the Maduro government officially recognize him as president, and for this reason they must be included in the list of recognition of the Maduro presidency. -- David C. S. ( talk) 03:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi NoonIcarus (a pleasure as always) and David C. S. (nice to meet you).
I've found this regarding Brazil This is in Spanish but I can make a full translation in case you ask me to. It basically says that Brazil will restart relations with Venezuela. Regards. -- CoryGlee ( talk) 09:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
As Guaidó is no longer "in office", shouldn't this map remains as it was on 5 January 2023? Did I miss something? If any other representative of Venezuelan opposition takes the place we will need a new "crisis article" and we could have another map if necessary. ReyHahn ( talk) 18:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)