Talk:Venezuela/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Flag in Infobox

I understand this is a politically sensitive article, but this page must reflect the facts of the situation. This flag:

Is the official flag of Venezuela, it has been since 2006 and it will remain as the flag until the VZ government decides to change it. I have made requests for someone to create an SVG version of this flag, but as I understand due to the coat of arms in the corner of the flag this will be very difficult. Until then, I believe that the PNG image of the current flag should be used rather than the SVG version of an ALTERNATE flag.

From the WIKI article about the flag of Venezuela:

"The current flag of Venezuela was introduced in 2006. The basic design includes a horizontal tricolor of yellow, blue, and red, dating to the original flag introduced in 1811, in the Venezuelan War of Independence. Further modifications have involved including a set of stars, multiple changes to the placement and number of stars and inclusion of an optional coat of arms at the upper-left corner."

Jp16103 21:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually I stand corrected, there IS an SVG file of the flag.

This will be the flag used from now on. Jp16103 21:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Supported by this citation at the article Flag of Venezuela. General Ization ^Talk 18:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your support on this issue, I'm not sure who I'm being denounced by, or who these "librarians" are? Im going to assume this is a translation error of some sort. Jp16103 23:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The issue has nothing to do with the division over Chavez' changes to the flag and coat of arms in 2006. File:Flag of Venezuela (state).svg and File:Flag of Venezuela.svg are both the national flag with 8 stars. However, the version with the coat of arms is the "State" flag, it is for use by the government and military, the version without the coat of arms is the civil flag for everyone to use. On articles, we use the civil flag, not the state flag. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

" the version with the coat of arms is the "State" flag, it is for use by the government and military, the version without the coat of arms is the civil flag for everyone to use. On articles, we use the civil flag, not the state flag" This simply is not true, if this were the case numerous flags on wikiedia would have to be changed. See example below..

By that logic this flag: should be used in the article for Spain rather than this flag: Jp16103 18:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

No, because that is the civil ensign only, for use at sea. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, that is not the case. That flag for example is the civil/variant flag of Spain. The definition of civil flag is as follows: "A civil flag is a version of the national flag that is flown by civilians on nongovernmental installations or craft". The variant flag of Venezuela you are promoting to be featured in the infobox is a variant and not the official state flag of Venezuela. There also is no precedent of using variant flags on wikipedia in infoboxes. Please see: Civil flag. Jp16103 21:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure which is right in this case. I lean towards trusting Fry on this matter because (I think) Fry is Venezuelan. I checked es.wiki, and their article agrees with Fry - both the image of the flag on the Venezuela article and in the Flag of Venezuela article. However, I don't think that es.wiki has quite the reputation for reliability that en.wiki does. In the article for flag of Venezuela, it says, "Según el Artículo 3 de la "Ley de Símbolos Patrios", los organismos del Estado, así como la Fuerza Armada Nacional usarán una variante de la bandera establecida como símbolo Estatal, esta bandera se diferencia de la bandera civil pues llevará en la esquina superior izquierda, próxima al asta, el escudo de armas de Venezuela." Roughly translated, that says that Venezuelan law stipulates that state organisms like the armed forces use a variant of the national flag and that said variant has the coat of arms. However, I then looked up that law, which says the following "En las fortalezas, destacamentos, cuarteles y locales de las Fuerzas Armadas y de la Policía Nacional, se enhestará la bandera nacional de acuerdo con los reglamentos militares y policiales dictados al efecto por el Poder Ejecutivo." Article 3 deals with the reaising for the flag, and the part I've quoted only stipulates that military establishments can raise the flag according to the military and police regulations as dictated by the executive. These dictates of the executive could be the distinguishing marks of having the coat of arms, but I don't have time to pursue this further and see if that's case. -- Irn (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The evidence I was using to promote the use of the current flag is this article[1]. " A white horse on the national coat of arms that appears on the flag now faces left instead of right". "Soldiers carrying the flag goose-stepped past the podium of Mr Chavez who himself hoisted the new banner". This source from the CIA World Fact Book[2] uses the flag with the coat of arms. I'm not sure how much clearer it can get. Jp16103 19:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

So I have been doing some more research on the topic throughout Wikipedia and I am finding that there is little consistency for the use of a state or civil flag. However, I have found that the majority of Latin American countries feature their state flag in their wikipedia articles, Guatemala, Uruguay, and Bolivia are examples of this. Therefore to stay consistent with other nations in Latin America I would suggest staying with the flag with the coat of arms in the corner. Jp16103 20:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It looks like we're dealing with two issues here: (1) state vs civil vs national flag and (2) international use. Citing the BBC and the CIA doesn't really clear things up; it only adds some support for one argument. On the state vs civil vs national, I found the relevant Venezuelan law, which specifies that the version without the coat of arms is the national flag and the version with the coat of arms is the state flag, an explicit variant of the national flag.[3] (Thus, the civil flag is the national flag.) This is different from the example you gave of Spain, because the national flag of Spain is the state flag.[4] (I'm not totally clear on the legal construction “se podrá incorporar”, but I take it to mean that the coat of arms is part of the flag; it might mean that with or without the coat of arms is equally valid i.e. both the civil and state flags are acceptable as the national flag.) Similarly, the national flags of Bolivia and Guatemala are also the state flags.[5][6] (I don't see a difference between the state and civil flag in Uruguay, just two other flags that are officially flown alongside the national flag.) Personally, I think it makes the most sense that the “Flag of Venezuela” would refer to the flag that Venezuelan law describes as the national flag. However, maybe this conversation needs to happen elsewhere where we can gain a larger consensus and come up with some sort of guideline to have more consistency across Wikipedia. -- Irn (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I am just confused about what standard we should hold this website. I have no issues or quarrel with using the other flag, I just feel that wikipedia should use the flag that Venezuela uses to represent itself internationally. However, this needs to be a broader discussion because it applies to other nations as well. Jp16103 19:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Why no mentions of hoarding and speculation by private companies?

The article can be more balanced. 2601:581:C001:95E0:E08A:9D9E:A634:7C9E (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you have sources for that? ErKURITA (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Government section

There's currently a bit of a back and forth regarding if Venzuela should be noted as an totalitarian/authoritarian state or not. I will leave that for others to decide, but I would like to add that that totalitarianism is a much more restrictive system than simple authoritarianism. And that the latter instead of the former better fits Venezuela's current government situation. Rikskansler (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

It still is a republic, at least on paper. Unfortunately there is no clear boundary between a constitutional democracy and a dictatorship. Maduro will never define himself as a dictator. Holy Goo (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that what sources say will be what is used for describing the government. For example, Cuba's article states it is a "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party state" citing its own constitution. Like other Cuban articles, the push for NPOV and the acceptance of the official Cuban sources makes it a appear that Venezuela will never be defined as "authoritarian", "totalitarian" or a "dictatorship", since such arguments will be made (see: Talk:Fidel_Castro#Request_for_Comment)--ZiaLater (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's wait to see how recent events play out before we make a decision on this. The crisis is still very much ongoing, and lots of people will have strong opinions one way or another. Twitbookspacetube 04:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Here is an article from the Latin American news agency TeleSur stating that the legislative assembly has not been suspended as people seem to think! [7] Vif12vf —Preceding undated comment added 10:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The court's decision has been reversed.[8] Jp16103 19:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

That's why it pays to wait a bit. Twitbookspacetube 02:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Economy

NPR: "Over the past 15 years, a flood of petrodollars paid for health, education and jobs programs that formed the heart of President Hugo Chavez's socialist revolution."

CNN: "But "Chavismo" and his program of "21st Century Socialism" have been bankrolled by the national energy company, Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA)."

USNews: "How Socialism Failed Venezuela"

Atlantic: "The experiment with “21st-century socialism” as introduced by the late President Hugo Chavez, a self-described champion of the poor who vowed to distribute the country’s wealth among the masses, and instead steered the nation toward the catastrophe the world is witnessing under his handpicked successor Maduro, has been a cruel failure."

There's no indication of "market-based mixed economy" in the references provided.Amberwaves (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Venezuela does NOT have a "socialist economy" and the sources provided do not even state this! The best you can do to push this blatant falsehood is find blurbs in media sources that refer to a "socialist revolution" or some such thing but do not mention anything about the actual economy being socialist. In order to have a socialist economy, the means of production would have to be nearly entirely owned on a social basis, either by government or worker cooperatives. This is not the case in Venezuela, as the means of production are still largely privately owned, in spite of the so-called "socialist revolution", which is why the world atlas correctly refers to Venezuela as having a mixed economy. Wikipedia should not be a place to push falsehoods to promote some political agenda. This is not a Trump forum!--C.J. Griffin (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

What the heck does Trump have to do with this? Multiple reliable sources say that Venezuela has a socialist economy, Hugo Chavez said that Venezuela is socialist, and over half the economy is controlled by the government. I think we can safely say that Venezuela's economy is socialist. Also, it's incredibly misleading to say that Venezuela's economy is "market based".Amberwaves (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Another source: The Week: "Venezuela's president blames foreign companies, the United States, and other dark foreign forces. But the actual reason is a mix of socialism and authoritarianism, which has systematically destroyed Venezuela's productive capacities."Amberwaves (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

No you cannot say that, and again you are cherry-picking media sources that make any note of "Venezuela" and "socialism". This still does not qualify as a reliable source for the claims made, because it does not specifically reference the economy. It is NOT a socialist economy if the means of production are held in private hands. Venezuela has a mixed economy because there is both private and public ownership of the means of production (and mostly private), it is that simple. That is what reliable sources say about its economy. What you keep inserting is highly undue and not backed by even one source you have cited.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Amberwaves: I agree with User:C.J. Griffin. The sources you've provided do not support the assertion that Venezuela is a socialist economy. “21st Century Socialism” and “socialist revolution” are political catchphrases that reflect political promises and can't be used to fairly describe the economy. I'm not familiar enough with the actual ownership percentages of the Venezuelan economy, but you would need to present a better source for your claim. The World Atlas source seems far better suited to the purpose of describing the economy than any of the sources you've cited. -- Irn (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

change the government type to totalitarian

Hello i am new to wiki edit and have made a change to the Venezuela wiki to reflect the shift in government. however after i made the change it got quickly changed back to constitutional government. who monitors this and who decides this?? is it that my sources where insufficient?? please somebody let me know how to proceed. thank you (Maltathedog (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC))

Whether or not it is currently effective, the Venezuelan constitution and the system of government it created are still formally in effect. In addition, yes, your sources were insufficient since you supplied none. See the discussion in the section directly above your question. General Ization ^Talk 22:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

"It still is a republic, at least on paper. Unfortunately there is no clear boundary between a constitutional democracy and a dictatorship. Maduro will never define himself as a dictator. Holy Goo (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)" This quote explains everything Jp16103 22:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

"late on Wednesday"

Whatever this meant in the original source, it means nothing in the article... AnonMoos (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Good call. That whole paragraph wasn't very clear, and it didn't even mention the resolution of the crisis days later when the Tribunal reversed itself. So I added that, and I think I made it clearer. -- Irn (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Venezuela. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110904200841/http://en.amigosprecolombino.es/cultures/central-america-and-intermedia/venezuela to http://en.amigosprecolombino.es/cultures/central-america-and-intermedia/venezuela
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060428111205/http://www.une.edu.ve/hatillo/historia.htm to http://www.une.edu.ve/hatillo/historia.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150220045923/http://www.el-nacional.com/politica/Ledezma-denuncio-intento-allanamiento-oficina_0_577742355.html to http://www.el-nacional.com/politica/Ledezma-denuncio-intento-allanamiento-oficina_0_577742355.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.wri.org/page.cfm?id=1607&z=%3F
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://eia.gov/country/country_energy_data.cfm?fips=VE
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706162307/http://bdtd.bce.unb.br/tedesimplificado/tde_arquivos/36/TDE-2008-08-21T100337Z-3085/Publico/2008_NeideMOGodinho.pdf to http://bdtd.bce.unb.br/tedesimplificado/tde_busca/arquivo.php?codArquivo=3873
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100218153602/http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/data_sheets/cty_ds_VEN.html to http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/data_sheets/cty_ds_VEN.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fao.org/ag/agn/nutrition/ven-e.stm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Venezuela. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160101201851/http://www.vtv.gob.ve/articulos/2013/03/08/tsj-sobre-art.233-nicolas-maduro-es-presidente-encargado-con-todas-las-atribuciones-1991.html to http://www.vtv.gob.ve/articulos/2013/03/08/tsj-sobre-art.233-nicolas-maduro-es-presidente-encargado-con-todas-las-atribuciones-1991.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141030070322/http://www.vtv.gob.ve/articulos/2013/03/08/asamblea-nacional-inicia-acto-de-juramentacion-de-nicolas-maduro-como-presidente-encargado-2780.html/ to http://www.vtv.gob.ve/articulos/2013/03/08/asamblea-nacional-inicia-acto-de-juramentacion-de-nicolas-maduro-como-presidente-encargado-2780.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140920031041/http://www.wunderground.com/climate/local_extremes.asp?extremesstation.db=burtworld&extremesstation.station_id=421 to http://www.wunderground.com/climate/local_extremes.asp?extremesstation.db=burtworld&extremesstation.station_id=421
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130706064537/http://www.wunderground.com/climate/local_extremes.asp?extremesstation.db=burtworld&extremesstation.station_id=438 to http://www.wunderground.com/climate/local_extremes.asp?extremesstation.db=burtworld&extremesstation.station_id=438
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160610160317/http://www.el-nacional.com/politica/Decreto-emergencia-economica-puede-pasar_0_793720683.html to http://www.el-nacional.com/politica/Decreto-emergencia-economica-puede-pasar_0_793720683.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160605124340/http://enpaiszeta.com/marquina-prorroga-del-decreto-emergencia-economica-es-inconstitucional/ to http://enpaiszeta.com/marquina-prorroga-del-decreto-emergencia-economica-es-inconstitucional/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160530153407/http://www.elsalvador.com/articulo/internacional/venezuela-una-dictadura-que-respeta-division-poderes-110967 to http://www.elsalvador.com/articulo/internacional/venezuela-una-dictadura-que-respeta-division-poderes-110967
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150702042820/http://www.latintrails.com/venezuela-info to http://www.latintrails.com/venezuela-info
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161126222856/http://www.mpps.gob.ve/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=941 to http://www.mpps.gob.ve/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=941
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131218043924/http://www.immigrationtovenezuela.com.ve/index.php/2013-10-02-22-52-18/2013-10-02-22-58-18 to http://www.immigrationtovenezuela.com.ve/index.php/2013-10-02-22-52-18/2013-10-02-22-58-18

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Venezuela. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150706181313/http://spartannewsroom.com/changeup/article/blog/formula-1-needs-more-attention-united-states to http://spartannewsroom.com/changeup/article/blog/formula-1-needs-more-attention-united-states
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080607090601/http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpubs/for/venezuela.htm to http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpubs/for/venezuela.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Imperialist attacks on Venezuela

As far as I can tell, the article does not mention the role of the United States in leading attempts to damage and destabilize Venezuela due to the country not adhering to neo-liberal economics, while it approaches other aspects of recent problems in the country. This view has been stated in mainstream publications, by figures such as former London mayor, Ken Livingstone. This includes a recent attempt to stir up opposition to Venezuela at the UN. Given the baneful and damaging history of US imperialism in Latin America (ie - Operation Condor, support of Chicago School-proxy Pinochet, etc), I think we need to highlight this latest attempt at subversion in the article. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  I agree this is a suspicious omission. 213.150.217.174 (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Relations with Guyana

Some maps (as found by google images) seem to indicate Venezuelan claims on western Guyana but I don't find any information on this, at least not in the foreign relations section.150.227.15.253 (talk) 09:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC) Link to Guayana Esequiba article added to the foreign relations section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.227.15.253 (talk) 09:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

There is some mention of the border dispute in the context of the 1890s, but nothing about its modern status. Does Venezuela still claim a portion of Guyana? If so, and if the claim is any more than symbolic, that would seem to merit further discussion in the article, as the anonymous IP suggests. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Venezuela still claims Guayana_Esequiba.XavierGreen (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Flag version to display in the Infobox

Hello,
I noticed there has been a content dispute recently over which version of the flag to use.
The version I introduced was "Flag of Venezuela.svg" which was reverted to "Flag of Venezuela (state).svg" citing the reason that we should not revert it to the Pre-Chavez flag.

I would like to remind editors that the version without the seal is not the Pre-Chavez flag.
Before Chavez, the national flag had seven stars on it.
After Chavez, the national flag had eight stars on it.

"Flag of Venezuela.svg" is not the Pre-Chavez flag, and the version without the seal is still the primary version, see Flag of Venezuela.
Please respond if you have any concerns. Thank you for your understanding.
Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

While the non-state version indeed is in official use, the state-version currently seems to be the most widely used one. I think the state-version should remain. Tiberius Jarsve (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The state-version is more widely used? In what way? I'd really like some statistics on that. The version without the seal is more widely used within Wikipedia than the version with the seal, there's fewer results with the seal on Google (not that that's necessarily important), and the civil flag is used as the national flag. I'd like it if we can get real statistics on the most widely used version of the flag, because the version without the seal is what I see most often by far. Not only that, the Venezuelan Government Website does not use the version with the seal. Most websites that reference the flag of Venezuela also do not use the version with the seal, such as (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6). This is a matter of accuracy, and if you can't find anything to suggest that the most common version of the flag of Venezuela is the version with the seal, then that would compromise accuracy in favour of what you feel is the more widely used version. Because the original argument cited by you to use the version with the seal was that the version without the seal was the pre-Chavez flag (which is incorrect) and that the version without the seal no longer holds the same legal status (which is also incorrect) and the only remaining argument is an unsourced claim that it's more common, I don't feel that you've put forward a rationale. For that reason, I will be changing the infobox to "Flag of Venezuela.svg" and the burden of proof is now on the unsubstantiated rationale for keeping the seal. It is neither the pre-Chavez flag nor unofficial, but it's also neither more widely used on Wikipedia nor on Venezuelan government websites nor in search results; this would be comparable to saying we should switch the Denmark infobox to use the Splitflag state flag and ensign version because it's used in state government buildings. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 04:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The pre-Chavez version is notably a symbol of the opposition groups in Venezuela. However WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS applies to such edits. As a neutral source we should be using whatever is currently the official flag. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Simonm223 (talk · contribs) Good faith reply, but also a very uninformed reply. We're not talking about the Pre-Chavez flag. Chavez added an 8th star where there used to be only 7. We're not discussing going back to the version with only 7. We're discussing whether the Civil flag or the State flag is the primary version of the national flag. Because this response seemed to be misguided, it is to be discounted as well. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 06:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I realised my mistake which is why I didn't do any further reverts or attempt to defend that position on talk. Carry on. Simonm223 (talk) 10:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The Primary version of the flag should be used in the infobox, we have had discussion about this before on this talk page. The official version of the flag, is the one with 8 stars and the coat of arms in corner. In fact, when the new flag was first revealed by Chavez, the version flown has the coat of arms on it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4800202.stm . Also, the IOC, CIA, OAS, and United Nations all use the version with the Coat of Arms. Jp16103 14:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, if you look through the Venezuelan government website, there is a page with general information about the country. On this page, there is a section called Bandera Nacional with a picture that clearly shows the version of the flag with the symbol. http://www.gobiernoenlinea.ve/home/venezuela.dot Jp16103 14:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Good faith, and if they were true these points would be good as well. Unfortunately, some of these statements are untrue or otherwise problematic.

• This is the homepage of the Venezuelan government website, and it clearly uses the civil flag.
• The first reveal of the newly updated flag with an eighth star using the state version doesn't mean that the scope of the civil flag is any broader or narrower.
• No, the IOC doesn't use the state flag, quite the opposite is true. They use the civil flag.
• You are correct that the CIA World Factbook displays the state flag.
• The UN may use a version with the seal, but it's the Pre-Chavez version with only 7 stars. The flags of Afghanistan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Mauritania, Nepal, Turkmenistan, and Ukraine are also wrong in one or more ways.

In short, though it was in good faith that you made these arguments, most of them fall under scrutiny. For the time being, I will switch back to the civil flag. What we really need is confirmation that the government status of the state emblem surpasses the civil flag. Until we can get that, we should go with what the official government website of Venezuela uses, which is the civil flag. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 06:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

No, check again, scroll to the bottom of the Venezuelan state website that I posted, that clearly is the flag with the symbol. The olympic website is wrong, see here, notice what flag Maduro is waving, also, the flag the team had in Rio. As for the United Nations, I can't find a clear picture of it, but they do use the flag with the symbol, see this item from their store. Until I can find a more reputable picture of the UN one, that can suffice for now, but I do recall the flag flying at the UN is the one with the symbol on it. Also, the flag flown at embassies to represent Venezuela is the flag with the symbol. Britannica also uses the flag with the symbol.

When Chavez changed the flag in '06, the law was amended to reflect the new changes to the flag. The law clearly states that the national flag has the coat of arms on it.

"La Bandera Nacional se inspira en la que adoptó el Congreso de la República en 1811. Está formada por los colores amarillo, azul y rojo, en franjas unidas, iguales y horizontales en el orden que queda expresado, de superior a inferior y, en el medio del azul, ocho estrellas blancas de cinco puntas, colocadas en arco de círculo con la convexidad hacia arriba. La Bandera Nacional que usen la Presidencia de la República y la Fuerza Armada Nacional, así como la que se enarbole en los edificios públicos nacionales, estadales y municipales, deberá llevar el Escudo de Armas de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela en el extremo de la franja amarilla cercano al asta. La Bandera Nacional usada por la Marina Mercante sólo llevará las ocho estrellas. "

"The National Flag is inspired by the one adopted by the Congress of the Republic in 1811. It is formed by the colors yellow, blue and red, in united, equal and horizontal stripes in the order that is expressed, from superior to inferior and , in the middle of the blue, eight white stars of five points, placed in arc of circle with the convexity upwards. The National Flag used by the Presidency of the Republic and the National Armed Force, as well as the one that is flying in national, state and municipal public buildings, must carry the Coat of Arms of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela at the end of the strip yellow near the pole. The National Flag used by the Merchant Navy will only carry the eight stars."

Generally, state flag supersedes the civil flag on Wikipedia, the flags on that page show examples of the differences between Civil and State flags. Jp16103 16:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Is Venezuela authoritarian?

Just wondering what others think of this. If the state is clearly authoritarian, there should be no reason to remove it from the infobox. Kingerikthesecond (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I would say yes.....but let's get some sources see how they word this.....would need to change more then just the infobox.--Moxy (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Only the naive and gullible could believe that Maduro's rule is not a dictatorship. A recent overview published by the Human Rights Watch, titled "Addressing the human rights and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela", opens with the statement, "Since President Maduro came to power in 2013, there has been an alarming rise in the intensity of abuses and the severity of the rights crackdown in Venezuela. Political and civil society repression has stifled dissenting voices. Severe shortages of food and essential medicines have created life-threatening conditions. More than 2.3 million Venezuelans have fled the country in response to the human rights and humanitarian crisis. In its report launched during the recent Human Rights Council session in June 2018, OHCHR highlighted the climate of complete impunity, leading the former High Commissioner Zeid to comment that “the rule of law is virtually absent in Venezuela”.

Nearly a year ago HRW published "Venezuela's Slide into Dictatorship"; which says, "A brutal crackdown on the streets between April and July left dozens of people dead, hundreds injured, and thousands detained. Many of those detained were civilians who were arbitrarily prosecuted in military courts for offenses including rebellion and treason, and were denied basic due process. Some remain in detention; others were conditionally released but remain subject to arbitrary prosecutions. Detainees have been systematically abused by Venezuelan security forces, and in some cases have been tortured with techniques including electric shocks and asphyxiation.

Reynaldo Trombetta wrote an article published by The Guardian, "Venezuela has fallen to a dictator. But we can help to restore democracy", in which he says, "We are not dealing with an authoritarian government that, like Chávez’s, still managed to loosely colour between the lines of democracy and the rule of law. This is a textbook dictatorship, with assassinations, torture and sexual abuse of political prisoners, violent censorship of the press, and a sociopathic strategy to use the hunger of its own citizens as a tool for political control." This sums up the situation in Venezuela and the nature of Maduro's brutal rule.

See also:

• "Access to Information Denied in Venezuela – Denying Crisis, Government Keeps Venezuelans in the Dark"
• A UN Rights Council Resolution published September 27, 2018: "Condemns Abuse; Calls for Aid; Sets Continued Reporting on Crisis" Carlstak (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Are external resources correct?

The page currently directs a link to the official website of Venezuela to a web.archive page of a page that doesn't look like a government website.

Other resources are also weird.

Is this correct?

73.61.58.250 (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

That was a link to the official government website (which appears to be down), but it was an archived page from 2001. I've linked it to the last archived iteration of the 27 June 2018 page instead. Carlstak (talk) 05:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

______ Venezuela population is incorrect someone needs to fix it - skannerz22 ———————- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skannerz22 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2019

Current dispute on legitimecy of Nicolas Maduro as President given that he was not democratically re-elected. Waltergonzalezperez (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/11/venezuela-maduro-juan-guaido-assume-presidency

I believe a reliable journal such as the Guardian would be sufficient? We certainly should not mark this person as president, but we should at least mention the situation, in a way that presents fairly what is going on, in order to maintain Wikipedia's status as a reliable encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.50.104.133 (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Human rights in Venezuela

There is a page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Venezuela

Is there a way of including this in the article? Thanks 92.0.12.101 (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

So what do we think? Permanent page semi-protection?

It doesn't look like we're ever going to run out of IP vandals, but permanent protection is generally a hard sell so it'd be good to see if there's consensus here first. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I think page protection is necessary, in fact i think it has been necessary for a long time! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

This article will be contentious and attract disrupters as long as there are social and political disturbances in Venezuela. So "permanent protection" should be a first move, following your proposition. Protection will save other editors time and energy. Carlstak (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Definitely. This is getting ridiculous. --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Populist policies or socialist policies?

The overview section describes the government and its policies as being "populist". However, the term, even as described in the Wiki page on populism, is difficult to define and has been co-opted enough across the entire political spectrum to be too vague. Would "socialist" be more apt? While socialism in and of itself has a wide means of application, I don't think that Venezuela's operating circumstances under Chavez and Maduro have been conducted under the guise of socialism is really debatable at this point. Txgreen (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2019

Please change Nicolas Maduro to Juan Guaidó because Venezuela's constitution states in itsa rticles 233, 333 and 350 that under no clear man in office, the president of the national assembly takes the role. Also all goverments in the region recognizes Nicolas Maduro as an usurper, and grants Juan Guaido as president in charge including OEA and US Office:

https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2019/01/288542.htm https://mundo.sputniknews.com/america-latina/201901231084951956-almagro-reconoce-la-presidencia-interina-de-guaido-en-venezuela/ Crisd000 (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• No There's far too much WP:RECENTISM in this request. Also it's phrased in a way that would constitute WP:OR. We should wait until we see what happens in the immediate crisis and when it's all settled then we can see about reflecting it on the page. Simonm223 (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I should note, since you're new, that when the dust has settled, we should depend on the statements in multiple reliable sources to ascertain how to reflect this latest crisis. You may see this as recognition from the united states of the legitimate president I may see this as a coup d'etat at the end of a decade of imperial economic warfare. Neither of our personal views are what matters here; what matters is what the sources say. Simonm223 (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Obvious bias of this article

Just wanted to point out how ridiculously biased the intro paragraphs to this article are. It is a rarity to see a country's wikipedia page focus almost exclusively on negative things. Also I seriously question the impartiality and credibility of sources. CNN or Bloomberg articles don't qualify as peer reviewed. When compared with other Latin American countries, this bias becomes more obvious. For instance the page for Colombia talks about "macroeconomic stability" and completely ignores things like inequality and violence which are rampant. When one considers that Venezuela is the bette noire of so many people, it is easy to see why this is happening here on wikipedia. You can talk about some of the problems the country is facing, but focusing on it so much in the intro paragraphs sends the wrong message, and again I question the credibility and impartiality of many of the sources on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.165.198.121 (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Completely disagree. The introduction is balanced, and if anything, understates the dire situation in Venezuela. CNN and Bloomberg are fine as sources for events in the news. Of course there are social and governmental problems in other South American countries, but nothing that compares to what is happening in Venezuela.

It's not for nothing that the Human Rights Watch has declared a human rights and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, as stated in my post above, or that the United Nations Human Rights Council issued a resolution expressing "deep concern about human rights violations in Venezuela|, saying that "the Venezuelan government should open its doors to humanitarian assistance to address 'scarcity of food and medicine, the rise of malnutrition' and 'the outbreak of diseases that had been previously eradicated or kept under control in South America.' " Some people have blinders on regarding what is happening in the country. Carlstak (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The anti-venezuelan bias of Wikipedia's editors is well known. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#American_and_corporate_bias as an example. 192.211.20.136 (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The president's title is now disputed

Since we have two people claiming the title, I have added "Disputed" to the infobox. Please read 2019 Venezuelan Presidential crisis for more info on the situation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Would it be useful to have the "(disputed)" link to said page? CommissarPat (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

It was linked but the info and wikilink were removed. I have restored them. Carlstak (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The reality on the ground is that Maduro is the president - he was just sworn is, he has all the power of the president, he performs the presidential duties out of Miraflores, etc. The opposition isn't saying that he's not currently the president; they're saying he isn't legitimately the president. The dispute isn't over who is the president; it's over who should be the president. I think it makes more sense to list Maduro as the president and then have "(disputed)" next to his name. -- irn (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

For notice: https://netblocks.org/reports/wikipedia-blocked-in-venezuela-as-internet-controls-tighten-XaAwR08M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habitator terrae (talk • contribs) 09:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Concur with Irn on this one. There's no dispute that Maduro is currently the president of Venezuela. Simonm223 (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Carlstak (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree as well. Not enough gound for the "disputed" tag. Prinsgezinde (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Prinsgezinde, please read irn's statement again. He says, "I think it makes more sense to list Maduro as the president and then have "(disputed)" next to his name." That is what we are agreeing. Carlstak (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I expect I know how that dispute will turn out unless the US decides to up the ante and directly intervene, but for the time being there is, at least a dispute with regard to whether Maduro should be president. However he is the president currently, the argument is with people blanking the section or changing the name in the section. Simonm223 (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

As Maduro was not elected in a legal election and the U.S does not recognize him that is enough.23:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.197.65 (talk)

• Comment I find it utterly galling, and flabbergasting, the extent to which people on this page don't seem to understand the concept of Sovereignty simply put, it is not the job of the United States, Canada, the Lima Group or any other set of outside states to decide who is the president of Venezuela. Their opinions are irrelevant to the matter at hand. Whoever controls the presidential institution of the country is the country's president. The rest is just propaganda. Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

President

Given that not a few nations have declared that they do not recognise the elections last year as legitimate, is it acceptable to mark Mr Maduro's presidency as disputed from today?

31.50.104.133 (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

No. The continued escalation of US action over Venezuela and the support of US allies against the state are not sufficient grounds. He's been recognized by several local states and international powers as well. Should Wikipedia really be picking sides between China and the United States? Would that be neutral? Simonm223 (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

While I appreciate your point, I feel that we should at very least mention the fact that Mr Maduro's presidency is contested. It is of course too early to say that Mr Maduro is illegitimate or legitimate, and as such I commend you for your attempts to protect this page from vandalism. Nevertheless, to ignore the situation would make Wikipedia less reliable as a source of information. 31.50.104.133 (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we should list Maduro as the elected president and Guaido as the US-appointed president. 2601:644:1:B7CB:189A:5289:16AE:A7FD (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

It is most of the Western Hemishphere, so maybe we should list Maduro is illegitimate President.198.0.166.1 (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Right, the Venzeulans elected Maduro, but foreign fascist regimes are supporting and funding Guaidó. There's a difference between an elected president and a foreign-backed dictator. 2601:644:1:B7CB:E041:9F05:C3CA:2817 (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Proper sequence of events

[Re-posting this as I have, apparently, improperly used the term "Semi-protected edit request".]

The article says:

Maduro won the 2018 election with 67.8% of the vote. The result was challenged by countries such as Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Brazil, Canada and the United States who deemed it fraudulent and moved to recognize Juan Guaidó as president. However international observers have countered this view and other countries such as Cuba, China, Russia, Turkey, Mexico, Uruguay and Iran came out in support of Maduro as President.

In January 2019 the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States (OAS) approved a resolution "to not recognize the legitimacy of Nicolas Maduro’s new term as of the 10th of January of 2019."

I propose listing the exact dates to make the sequence of events clear:

Maduro won the presidential election held on 20 May 2018 with 67.8% of the vote. The result was challenged by countries such as Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Brazil, Canada and the United States who deemed it fraudulent. On 10 January 2019, Maduro was inaugurated as President of Venezuela. On the same day, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States approved a resolution "to not recognize the legitimacy of Nicolas Maduro’s new term as of the 10th of January of 2019". On 23 January 2019, the countries that challenged the legitimacy of Maduro's win moved to recognize Juan Guaidó as interim president. However, international observers have countered this view and other countries such as Cuba, China, Russia, Turkey, Mexico, Uruguay and Iran came out in support of Maduro as President.

I have also changed the archive.org link from Jan 24 snapshot to Jan 11 snapshot, which is the earliest snapshot of the OAS resolution. Hopefully someone with edit rights will incorporate my proposal. Thanks. --46.242.12.10 (talk) 10:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from but it disrupts the sentence regarding the reaction from independent observers, making it seem artificial and tacked on rather than integrated into the narrative. Simonm223 (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The sentence starting "However, international observers... " should appear immediately after the sentence which ends "... deemed it fraudulent" in order to maintain a logical order. The international observers are commenting on the validity of the election. Burrobert (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Simonm223 (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you're right! (I totally forgot about that sentence.) Anyone willing to insert the new version (with Burrobert's edit) into the article? --46.242.12.10 (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Disputed Presidency

At which point would the disputed presidency (Between Maduro and Guaido) be undisputed? What would have to happen for Guaido to be recognized as the country's president? This question comes after the President of the USA, Donald Trump, recognizes the opposition backed leader. All of this within the realms of Wikipedia of course and not International Politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrinceSpencerTheFirst (talk • contribs) 18:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

End of the day - we follow what RSes say (and they usually follow facts on the ground). Either one of them steps down, or this is resolved via violence.Icewhiz (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

For now, I think Maduro should still be in the infobox. He has not stepped down or has been removed yet. --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I re-added the disputed status per WP:NPOV, several major countries now do not recognize him. We cant take political sides in this debate as different countries are forming their own support/oppose lines. By leaving Maduro in the infobox it shows that we are being partisan. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I will add that now we have two people officially sworn in as president. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

How can an unrecognized body officially swear anyone in as president? Use of the word "officially" here is itself partisan. Asasinarosa (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Different countries recognize two different people, this better? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

What does the opinion of foreign countries amount to? The US and its OAS allies certainly desire a different leadership in Venezuela, I'm sure they want different leadership in a bunch of other places too. Does the POTUS simply have to announce some unknown MEK operative is president instead of Rouhani, and suddenly Iran's leadership is changed to "disputed" in an encyclopedia? Asasinarosa (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

"Three white guys (referring to Donald Trump, Mike Pence and Marco Rubio) picking the president of a 30 million-strong black and brown majority country. But imperialism totally isn't a thing anymore." - Venezuelanalysis Burrobert (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs) 14:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

We are going into WP:OSE arguments now, each situation is different so I cant really comment on possible alternate timelines. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Then, as the Spanish Wikipedia added both Maduro and Guaidó as the President of Venezuela "with partial recognition" in the infobox, should be a good idea to reflect that at the infobox here, instead of the "Disputed" text? --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to presenting the info in this way if you feel it would be an improvement. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I would posit that we are not being neutral if we favour the fantasy of the United States and their client states over the opinion of literally the rest of the world. The fact is Maduro is the de facto president regardless of the de jure dispute. The fact he was able to expel US diplomats and withdraw Venezuelan diplomats from the US demonstrates this. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

We must adhere to a WP:NPOV, the fact remains that major countries like the USA and the UK do not recognize Maduro. You don't hear me saying Russia and its "client states". Making arguments on who the legit president is because of x actions is better left outside of Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The opinion of "literally the rest of the world"?

See EURACTIV yesterday: "The European Union said Wednesday (23 January) that the voice of the Venezuelan people "cannot be ignored" and called for "free and credible elections" after the South American country’s parliament leader declared himself interim president on Wednesday."

Donald Tusk, the EU Council President tweeted, "I hope that all of Europe will unite in support of democratic forces in #Venezuela. Unlike Maduro, the parliamentary assembly, including Juan Guaido have a democratic mandate from Venezuelan citizens."

And speaking of "client states", last month Russia sent two nuclear-capable bombers to Venezuela to participate in a military drill. Carlstak (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The words you've quoted from Tusk give political support to Guaido, but do not amount to a withdrawal of diplomatic recognition of Maduro's presidency by the EU. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, Venezuela's presidency is not disputed at all. Guaidó declared himself as the president after losing the election. The real situation is that Maduro is the president. Anyone can declare themself as the president of any country, but it does not mean there is a real and legitimate controversy. And this is not a matter of political preference or opinion. 86.50.119.151 (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

86.50.119.151 Guaidó didn't even receive any votes because he wasn't a candidate! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Based off the discussion here I went ahead and added to the leader section to show the actual situation, I cited who is recognized by which venezuelan institutions. If you're a registered wiki editter I welcome your opinion, if you're an unregistered troll I'll not read what you say. Saludos! Alcibiades979 (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Many unregistered users make valuable contributions, and their opinions are as relevant as those of anyone else. See this essay for a fuller explanation of this. Kranix (talk | contribs) 13:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I 100% agree on 99% of the articles, however in the 1% that are politically contentious for whatever reason the voices of reason can be drown out by those with ulterior motives. Which can be frustrating at times. For instance check out the talk section for Alexander the Great,it's hundreds of pages of fierce arguing between Greeks and North Macedonians over his racial identity. Anyhow, I apologize that I spoke a bit brusquely, but seeing a bunch of CIA conspiracy stuff brought me back to issues that Ive had in the past. Alcibiades979191.95.52.18 (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit war

Pretty obvious edit war going on just now, any thoughts on what the proper edit should be? - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 07:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Suggest we acknowledge the reality — right now, like it or not, Maduro is in charge.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

No - we reflect sources - which basically state no one is in charge, that there are massive street protests and mayhem, contested control over various functions of government, and international recognition of two different leaders.[9] As long as this persists, we can not state that Maduro is in chagrge. Icewhiz (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

What are your sources for "contested control over various functions of government"? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, even if Maduro is not considered legitimate by several countries, he is still the de facto president, despite the horrible sufferings he caused. Garlicolive (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

As much as I prefer de facto, Wikipedia abides by sources. Reliable Sources[10] state that there is confusion [11], contest[12], and international recognition/nonrecognition issues [13] Jcmcc (Talk) 12:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

None of those sources suggest that Maduro is not currently de facto the president. Simonm223 (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Maduro should be in the infobox. He hasn't been ousted, nor has he resigned yet. No reason to remove him from the infobox as he is still the de facto president of Venezuela, whether you like it or not. --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Why would we not link the dispute so our readers can learn more with an article outlining the problem full of sources from both stand points? Our job is to inform not pick a side. Not sure the "I know best stance" is helpful for our readers.-- Moxy (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Simon -- none of the sources mentioned suggest that the current de facto president is anyone other than Maduro. In fact, the NYT report describes Maduro as "Venezuela's president" and Guaido as "opposition leader" and says that Maduro has established "strong support from the country's armed forces".Kalidasa 777 (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Could you read over 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis and note the exhaustive list of sources and clear debate in the International Community Then feel free to debate the topic there. In the meantime it's best we lead our readers to the article that outlines the problem that as "all" can see is not as simple as one source can outline. Can you explain why you're not interested in leading our readers to more information? --Moxy (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm well aware there's been debate in the international community, with President Trump energetically pushing Juan Guaidó's bid for power, claiming Guaidó is already the de jure interim president of Venezuela. The unconvincing character of the Trump/Guaidó argument has been analysed in Bloomberg by Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, in an article titled "US recognition of Venezuela's Guaido is disguised regime change" [14]. In any case, the de facto situation today is clear to the NYT, which is hardly a pro-Maduro source — the Venezuelan state forces have remained loyal to President Maduro. Can you explain why WP should go on hiding this reality from its readers? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

We are not hiding anything and is why we have an article that explains what you have just outlined. You're actually suggesting leading our readers away from an article with that information and directing them to a bio with minimal amount of information about the topic. Think of what is best to inform our readers... and represents things in the most neutral way.--Moxy (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

OK. Some of us want the info box to inform readers about the de facto situation, others want it to mention the dispute and lead interested readers to a page about that... Why don't we try to do both? We could say something like "President: Nicolás Maduro (constitutional position disputed)", with a link to the relevant page. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. It tells the fact that Maduro is still the de facto president, having a disputed tag with a link to the presidential crisis to maintain neutrality. --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

We should try to do neither. Insofar as the infobox is concerned, we have to present any information as it's chronicled by what RS say and RS refer to Maduro by the unambiguous title "Venezuelan president" and not "Venezuelan presidential claimant" or "Venzeuelan presidential challenger", or even non-committal titles like "Venezuelan leader," etc., for example:

• (NPR) - "Kremlin Rallies To Defend Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro" [15]
• (BBC) -"In its battle against the rule of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the United States ..." [16]
• (The Guardian) - "Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores are seen atop a military vehicle during a military exercise in Puerto Cabello" [17]
• (Los Angeles Times) - "Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, while visiting military installations in the state of Carabobo on Sunday ..."
• (Associated Press) - "President Nicolas Maduro dug in and accused his opponents of orchestrating a coup."
• (Deutsche Welle) - "President Nicolas Maduro and opposition leader Juan Guaido are competing for control of the military."
• (Al Jazeera) - "Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has rejected calls by European nations to hold early elections ...

Chetsford (talk) 06:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The government is split, Maduro is recognized by the National Constituent Assembly and the Supreme Tribunal, Guaidó is recognized by the National Assembly and The Supreme Tribunal in Exile. These are the facts on the ground. It doesn't have anything to do with foreign countries, half the Venezuelan Government recognizes Maduro, half Guaidó. I've edited the main page to reflect this, by essentially ripping off the Spanish Wiki. Alcibiades979 (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You've mentioned the Supreme Tribunal in Exile which meets in Panama, as one of your "facts on the ground", and you say this "doesn't have anything to do with foreign countries"... In relation to Venezuela, isn't Panama a foreign country? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I really want to avoid political arguments and just stick to the facts, because Wikipedia should be impartial. The question is: are there state organs of Venezuela that accept Juan Guaidó as President of Venezuela. The answer the Spanish Wikipedia came up with is that yes there infact are, one being the National Assembly which is one of the Three Branches of Government provided for by the Constitution of Venezuela, and the other is the Supreme Tribunal in Exile. As such they say that because there is partial Venezuelan government recognition of Juan Guaidó as President, the presidency should be listed as disputed. I find this to be a fair judgement of the situation, and to accurately depict the situation on the ground. 191.89.248.231 (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Also I think the reason the Spanish Wiki references the Supreme Council in Exile is because it was appointed by the National Assembly of Venezuela, however it was subsequently not recognized by Maduro and hence went in to exile. Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I just cut this out

because the reference given is a dead link and since that are "quotes" given they really must be verifiable.

• </ref> The profits of the oil industry have been lost to "social engineering" and corruption, instead of investments needed to maintain oil production.
  

Carptrash (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the text that was sourced to article moved behind paywall, as well as its ref link with archive url and date; readers can read entire article on web archive page. Added also, "According to Sebastian Boyd, writing at Bloomberg News". Carlstak (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

References

International Observers

I nixed this section:

However international observers have countered this view {Sources} https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/13899 http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/opinion/jamaican-government-has-betrayed-venezuela-s-friendship-and-sovereignty_155103?profile=1096 https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/05/29/election-observer-the-majority-have-chosen-the-path-they-want-for-venezuela/

I did this for a few reasons, A. international observer is a fairly wide open title and only appeared once in the article, the place where I deleted it, and the way in which it's stated can be construed as a false sense of authority. B. The sources are suspect. I pasted them here to show. One is an online news site started with funding from Chavez and closely linked to the official talking points of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, the next is an op-ed from Jamaica from an author who describes himself as: "a former lecturer in the Department of Economics at The University of the West Indies, Mona. He now resides in the US." A quick google search for him along with the university yields no other results. The last is Counterpunch which, according to Wiki, the editors of the publication describe it is a "muckraking with a radical attitude". Finally C. It's POV, the definition is so broad I can pull up some op-eds easily that endorse Guaidó. So for these reasons I nixed it. I would be open to having it if there were sources that were well... more widely published, and by better known publishers, and then we could go ahead and tackle the NPOV problem, but realistically it just seems to me that this is more difficult to keep in the article all together. It's much easier with the countries. Alcibiades979 (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I concur - these would not generally be regarded as mainstream sources.Icewhiz (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Changes I made to Maduro Presidency

I don't want to beat a dead horse, or post irrelevant information, but I realize that this is a bit of a touchy subject, and I want to mention the changes I've made. The article significantly discusses the results of economic impacts that have occurred during Maduro's presidency such as inflation, protests, all of that. I added in several sourced sentences on why the economy has had issues. In these several sentences I speak of the effect of the decline in oil prices on the venezuelan economy as well as the long term impacts this has had on the economy of venezuela and its falling oil exports which are some of the major reasons behind the fall in the venezuelan economy and the shortages that have been had. For my sources I have used The New York Times, The Globe and Mail (I'll change this one to the Economist/NYT/WSJ), Reuters, and the WSJ. The article from the WSJ as I mentioned is an op-ed, however the author of it is Daniel Yergin who is a pulitzer prize winning author who writes on the global oil and energy industries. If you disagree with these changes, or think they're poorly placed, please let me know and we'll work together. Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Simonnm

I'm wondering why you deleted all of what I've added. My sources were the Wall Street Journal, Daniel Yergin a Pulitzer Prize winning author on the Oil Industry, the Guardian, Al Jazeera etc. These are well regarded sources, the only outlier is Al Jazeera which can be funny at times, but I'd not call these POV. Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I've also discussed my changes in the talk section. Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

AJ is not great, but WSJ and NYT definitely are sources we should be using. Icewhiz (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that these are better sources.----ZiaLater (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

China Burrobert

What I meant to say is that their support to Maduro has been in the form of economic aid, large loans for oil as well as direct investments etc. And of course cameos with Xi Xinping and what not, but this has been widely been getting cut, due to actions from both sides. Mainly China, however Venezuela came out today saying its in negotiations with India to barter its crude to India, even though its over $20B in the hole to China. But it does seem that there's a good deal of information displaying how the relationship has been parting ways. Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the update @Alcibiades979:. I personally wouldn't regard Western commentators/analysts as reliable sources in this situation even when their opinion is published in what we call an RS. RT and Sputnik are more reliable sources for what is happening in Russia and Xinhua is more reliable for China in my opinion. I have not seen any reports on these sites about a change in attitude. Most relevant articles show a healthy scepticism of what is happening in Venezuela. E.g. Anyway the fluidity of the situation and unreliability of reports makes it pointless to try to keep an encyclopaedia up to date in this situation. I would not expect readers to consider Wikipedia as a reliable source of up to date information about international events anyway. Burrobert (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course man. I went through Xinhua at one point but most of the stuff was evaluating the Venezuelan situation through it's foreign relations with other countries and not China. I do tend to think that China is a bit more subtle, so when they said they're willing to work with whomever I think that carries more weight than what it might in the west. Also if one only reads Xinhua they might've missed Maduro's last visit to Beijing, and be puzzled if someone told them that in that visit Maduro stated that he received a $5B USD loan, which has led to a good deal of debate as to whether or not he actually received it since China never said a word about it. I think that this is alot more indicative of strains in the relationship, it's just one goes really quickly in to analysis which is of course not what wikipedia is for. Alcibiades979 (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

New York Times reports (Feb 14) that China is one of about 50 countries that have agreed with Venezuela's current administration on a joint public statement about what's been happening. The statement calls for non-intervention in the internal affairs of UN member states. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Kalidasa:. I have added the story to the page related to the Venezuela crisis. It seems more relevant there.Burrobert (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Ilhan Omar article Venezuela section needs more eyes

The section of the Ilhan Omar article related to the crisis in Venezuela needs some more eyes. Thanks.Adoring nanny (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2019

change "As a result of the debt that Marcos Pérez Jiménez had left, it was necessary an economic adjustment program in Venezuela."

to "As a result of the debt that Marcos Pérez Jiménez had left, an economic adjustment program was necessary in Venezuela."

I'm not a native speaker but I'm pretty sure the first version is wrong and in fact is a mistake often made my Spanish (and Portugese) speakers. Panosfirbas (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done The first version was definitely wrong. Thanks, Panosfirbas. aboideau^talk 18:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

POV - food waste

"In September 2016, a study published in the Spanish-language Diario Las Américas[127] indicated that 15% of Venezuelans are eating "food waste discarded by commercial establishments"." the study was not published by Diario Las Américas. it was not a study but a poll performed by MORE Consulting with a sample of 2000 people. "study" is a mistranslation. More information is needed regarding this poll as there is evidence that they do not understand basic nutrition. In particular, some of their conclusions are based on the idea that only premium cuts of meat and fish constitute an acceptable form of dietary protein while milk products, beans and grains do not constitute a dietary source of protein. Based on the absence of premium cuts of meat in a portion of Venezuelans' diets they concluded that these people do not eat any protein. They also conclude that a high quality diet includes a premium cut of meat with every meal.

more information is needed regarding what constitutes food waste and how much of their diet consists of 'waste'. many food bank programs around the world provide refuse as food. it's not clear whether they mean garbage out of a waste can or for example, nearly expired products or lower quality older products. In Australia it's common for charities to distribute day-old bread from 'baked fresh daily' bakeries for example which is a type of discarded refuse. american charities are known to distribute 'garbage' as it appears in the wiki or on an american charity website, "Surplus prepared meals, frozen and perishable product is rescued from grocery stores, bakeries, restaurants, hospitals, colleges, schools and grocery wholesalers in the Fargo-Moorhead and Bismarck-Mandan communities, and then distributed to shelters, soup kitchens and emergency food pantries." 49.198.21.145 (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

further illustrating my point, Australia is one of the most highly ranked countries in the world for standard of living on the OECD rankings yet Woolworths has donated an average of a million kilograms of 'food waste' a year for distribution by charities. a report from the Australian Government stated, "Food rescue organisations contribute to reducing wasted food that is suitable for human consumption. In rescuing food that would otherwise be thrown away, these organisations provide those in need with a meal, partly addressing food insecurity. A range of people access food relief in Australia. The number of people receiving food relief is high. One food relief organisation reports that each month 652,000 Australians receive food relief, with over 27 per cent of these being children." It can thus be concluded that food deemed suitable for human consumption remains food and not garbage. the USDA further explained the reasoning behind the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 and encourages the distribution and consumption of "food waste","Donations of non-perishable and unspoiled perishable food from homes and businesses help stock the shelves at food banks, soup kitchens, pantries, and shelters. Donations of perishable prepared foods, typically collected from restaurants, caterers, corporate dining rooms, hotels, and other food establishments, also play an important role in feeding families in need..."

Thusly, I argue that editors should refrain from using inflammatory language such as describing reclaimed food as garbage as it violates wiki policy by distorting the information at hand and POV pushing. 49.198.21.145 (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Why do you keep saying 'waste can' the name in english is 'bin'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.216.24 (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Flag of Amazonas State.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

State Flag and not just flag?

I note underneath the image of country's flag that it says "State Flag." Shouldn't that just be "Flag" because it's a country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzali (talk • contribs) 02:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)