Talk:El Junquito raid

I suggested in the Spanish Wikipedia naming the article as Operación Gedeón since it is the official name of the raid. I'd like to also known the opinions of the editors here.--Jamez42 (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've nothing against the official name, but firstly we have to decide which variant is more preferable in the English Wikipedia (Operación Gedeón, Operation Gedeon, Operation Gideon (2018), etc). I say this because there is a similarly named article, see Operation Gideon.--Russian Rocky (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Government's position
I inserted a couple of sentences summarising the position of the government and its supporters about the event, neither endorsing it nor disputing it (and made a similar edit to the page about Pérez). It was sourced to Al-Jazeera, citing the government, and to Venezuelanalysis, known as a pro-Bolivarian outlet, which seems logical when the purpose is to provide information about the pro-government position. This was promptly reverted by User:Jamez42, who went on to leave a on my talk page stating: "Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed."

This is quite remarkable, since the nutshell summary of NPOV states is precisely that "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias." Both the article about the El Junquito raid and the article about Pérez did not explain the (pro-)government side at all; the latter one actually referred to the Miami Herald's disputing the accuracy of the government's claims without even having stated what those claims are. Therefore, my edits were exactly a (minimal) step towards ensuring NPOV, whereas Jamez42's revert is extreme POV-pushing: apparently, the (pro-)Bolivarian government position must not be presented even for a second, not even in order to debunk it. Accusing me of violating NPOV under these circumstances strikes me as quite remarkable. The fact that my edit informs the reader about that position - without endorsing it - does not make it "less than neutral", on the contrary. Wikipedia's NPOV standards aside, even a traditional media outlet is expected to give at least minimal coverage to both sides in a controversy.

Regarding Jamez42's statement that Venezuelanalysis is not a reliable source - it is clearly an adequate source for what the pro-Bolivarian government position is, precisely because it is known to be a pro-Bolivarian government source: as stated in WP:BIASEDSOURCES, "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." The article also uses American and English sources such as CNN, Buzzfeed and Bellingcat, which are generally aligned with the US government's foreign policy, including its opposition to the Bolivarian movement, as well as Venezuelan outlets such as Efecto Cocuyo, La Patilla and El Nacional, which are known to be pro-opposition. As for whether Venezuelanalysis is reliable - I haven't seen any argument that it has widely acknowledged "poor reputation for checking the facts" (WP:UNRELIABLE). (I'm leaving aside the highly problematic question "reputation among whom"). The fact that most media worldwide have an anti-Bolivarian stance should not be enough to conclude that any pro-Bolivarian outlet is unreliable by definition. Finally, even if Venezuelanalysis really were unreliable, that still wouldn't have been a reason for Jamez42 to delete the sentence sourced to Al Jazeera as well. --82.137.111.223 (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. The main reason of the revert is because the timeline of the operation just state facts, it doesn't mention who started the shootout. It is worth mentioning that even in this case, this doesn't explain or justify other of the claims of the extrajudicial execution, such as Oscar's attempts to contact the Attorney General and the gunshots found in the corpses' heads during their autopsy. Regarding the reliability of the sources, no proof as been provided that they're "aligned with the US government", specially Efecto Cocuyo, which I have previously defended for being an independent domestic outlet. Are these claims made for the only reason they oppose Maduro's government? Regards. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Luisa Ortega Diaz implicates Maduro directly

 * http://www.caraotadigital.net/internacionales/luisa-ortega-diaz-reconocio-sin-tapujos-que-tiene-infiltrados-en-el-ministerio-publico/ Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/21/americas/venezuela-oscar-perez-death-photos-intl/index.html Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2019/03/20/venezuela-cop-oscar-perez-murdered-oppmann-pkg.cnn Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Biased language
The entire article is peppered with unsupported generalities and biased language that read like a political manifesto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:E:9050:6490:B185:5DDD:1599 (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comparing this article with the Spanish language Wikipedia page, it can be noted that it is for the most part a bad translation of the Spanish-language page, including the addition of non-neutral language to the text, and edited to remove almost all material that doesn't present the armed rebels in a favorable light. The bias is transparent, especially since information has been intentionally removed. 2A01:E0A:E:9050:6490:B185:5DDD:1599 (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Omits US Sanctions as a source of economic crisis
The article is beyond mere bias in that it omits widely known facts such as the effect of US sanctions since 2006 under President George W Bush due to Venezuela not going along with the 'War on Drugs' that is now commonly held to be a failure. Many US reports detail the additional sanctions under Obama and Trump as devastating to human life and health as well as illegal. That economic sanctions of this type, which cause widespread hunger and disease, and increased mortality, are in violation of international law, including the UN Charter and international human rights law. It is worth noting that both the Hague and Geneva Conventions, to which the US is a signatory, prohibit collective punishment of civilians. Unilateral sanctions are explicitly banned by the Organization of American States to which the USA is signatory. This also makes the USA seizure of Venezuelan state bank funds (reported to be $5.5-30 billion) also illegal, going as far as preventing the purchase of medicines during the Covid crisis and transferring hundreds of millions to Juan Guaido in Miami.

Motive for the sanctions has also been widely published to be at the behest of US oil companies. In a recent book by Andrew McCabe, former acting FBI director, Trump is quoted as saying “That’s the country we should be going to war with. They have all that oil and they’re right on our back door.” National Security Adviser John Bolton stated that “We’re in conversation with major American companies now. … It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies really invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela.” [https://www.worldometers.info/oil/venezuela-oil/

Venezuela is ranked 1st in the world accounting for 18.2% of the world's total oil reserves.] According to a September 2021 survey, 77 percent of Venezuela’s 28 million residents live in extreme poverty, the highest rate in Latin America. In 1973-1989 they had the highest per-capita income in Latin America.

Of course Venezuela has its history as a petrostate and the inevitable corruption that brings. Outside political interference that continues to present with US and corporate backed military coups, along with wildly fluctuation oil prices and US sanctions have prevented attempts at economic diversification. The 1989 IMF intervention privatized much of the nation's diverse sources of income and austerity measures introduced alienated the public.

There are very many factors that led to the situation in 2018 that the article ignores and, with an obvious agenda, places responsibility solely with Bolivarian government and particularly presidents Chavez and Maduro. Whinestein (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)