Misplaced Pages

Talk:Crisis in Venezuela: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:13, 6 February 2019 editSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors278,950 edits set up archiving← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:38, 21 December 2024 edit undoSamolukadjo (talk | contribs)149 edits →Sanction: ReplyTag: Reply 
(278 intermediate revisions by 48 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header|search=yes}} {{talk header|search=y}}
{{WikiProject Venezuela|class=c|importance=top}} {{WikiProject banner shell |class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Venezuela|importance=top}}
{{merged-to|Venezuelan economic crisis of 2016|2017}}
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Finance & Investment|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject 2010s|importance=Mid}}
}}
{{merged-from|Venezuelan economic crisis of 2016|2017}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Crisis in Venezuela/Archive index |target=Talk:Crisis in Venezuela/Archive index
Line 10: Line 16:
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 140K |maxarchivesize = 140K
|counter = 1 |counter = 2
|algo = old(30d) |algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Crisis in Venezuela/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Crisis in Venezuela/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}


== A comment - oil, Oil, OIL! ==
== Orphaned references in ] ==
I check pages listed in ] to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for ] in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of ]'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for ''this'' article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

<b>Reference named "http":</b><ul>
<li>From ]: {{cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2013/02/venezuela%E2%80%99s-currency|accessdate=12 February 2013|title=Venezuela’s currency: The not-so-strong bolívar|work=]|date=11 February 2013}}</li>
<li>From ]: {{cite news|title=Cabello: Machado va a ser juzgada por asesina (Video)|url=http://www.lapatilla.com/site/2014/03/18/cabello-machado-va-a-ser-juzgada-por-asesina/|accessdate=19 March 2014|newspaper=La Patilla|date=18 March 2014}}</li>
<li>From ]: {{cite web|publisher='']''|title=Banco de la Vivienda transfirió 66 millardos para subsidios|url=http://www.eluniversal.com/2006/11/10/eco_art_64504A.shtml|date=10 November 2006|accessdate=29 December 2006|language=es}}</li>
</ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. ]] 04:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

== Requested moves ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

The result of the move request was: '''move''' ] to ], which was performed by ].--] (]) 18:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

----
* ] → {{no redirect|Crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela}} Venezuela under the Bolivarian government is facing a crisis, which is obvious. What isn't obvious are the exact dates that this crisis began. A more generic title is proposed since we don't have the sources to support a date in the title. --] (]) 07:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

<hr />
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->

== Strange title ==
This article has a strange title, and I'm surprised it was moved with so little discussion. The phrase "Bolivarian Venezuela" only occurs in the title; it is not mentioned again in the article. What does "Bolivarian" mean in this context? Is it referring to the official name of the country (the "Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela") or does it refer to the ]? Or ]? If this is about "Bolivarian Venezuela", what other Venezuelas are there? ]] (]) 09:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

:There is no other Bolivarian Venezuela and if things were to change, there would most likely no longer be a Bolivarian Venezuela. The term is often used to refer to the current goverment, the Bolivarian government.--] (]) 02:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

== External links modified ==
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140228074857/http://globovision.com/articulo/medicos-del-hospital-universitario-paralizan-procedimientos-quirurgicos-tras-falta-de-insumos to http://globovision.com/articulo/medicos-del-hospital-universitario-paralizan-procedimientos-quirurgicos-tras-falta-de-insumos

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 14:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

== Requested move 17 September 2017 ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

The result of the move request was: '''not moved'''. If we were going by a nose count, there would be a slight edge for not moving, so no consensus could be justified, but consensus is not a vote, and the strength of argument is on the side of the opposes. The naming policy on the English Misplaced Pages first looks for the most common name that is used in English-language sources. While COMMONNAME was asserted, no evidence was presented that this was the common name in English. Additionally, arguments appealing to es.wiki are not relevant to naming conventions on en.wiki. Finally, those opposing appealed to consistency with other similar articles involving country names, which is also a part of our naming policy. On the weight of the arguments, I'm comfortable closing this as not moved rather than no consensus or relisting. <small>(])</small> ] (]) 04:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
----

] → {{no redirect|Crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela}} – The official name of the sovereign state is the ''']''' and the current government is commonly referred to in both the media and scholarly documents across the political spectrum as the "'''Bolivarian government'''".</nowiki>], </nowiki>], </nowiki>], </nowiki>], There is no concensus as to when the date of the crisis began since it began before Maduro's presidency. The Bolivarian government also "". Since there is no concensus on a date, it would be sutiable to state that this is a "Crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela", since there has been no other crisis in "Bolivarian Venezuela" and there has also been no other "Bolivarian Venezuela" in history. If another crisis were to occur in the future or another government were to be created under the "Bolivarian" title, then a rename with a timeframe may be appropriate. However, most refer to the current government and nation as being "Bolivarian". I encourage multiple comments so this title dispute can be adequately resolved. ] (]) 02:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': The provided rationale is hard to understand. As far as I know, the country is primarily known as Venezuela, not Bolivarian Venezuela. —] (]) 04:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
::{{re|User:BarrelProof}} Well, historically the term "]" has been used to describe international crises, such as the ] and the ]. The title "Crisis ''in'' Venezuela" is suitable since it focuses on the domestic issues since it is a crisis ''in'' Venezuela. However, in this case, the timeline cannot be corroborated, so Crisis in Venezuela (XXXX-XXXX) is not suitable. There are no sources that can confirm when the crisis began; some point to 2009 when the ] hit Venezuela, some say 2012 when Chávez overspent on his electoral campaign, some agree on 2013 when Maduro was elected into the presidency and some argue it all began in 2014 when the oil prices plunged. There is no consensus as to when this crisis occurred, but there is a consensus that it is occurring in Bolivarian Venezuela. Possibly "Crisis in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela" or "Crisis in the Fifth Republic of Venezuela? Both do not roll off the tongue as well, though, but they are more specific.

::For example, in other articles such as the ] (the Tenmei era) and the ] (the Tenpō era), articles include a historical "era" to their title. This is the same with Persian or Soviet famines. Other instances such as the ] have historical dates and profound analysis. Since this event is so recent, we cannot decide a definite timeframe. Currently Venezuela is in its "Bolivarian" era, so it would make more sense to call this event the "Crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela". Hope this long response helps and I do not look like I'm just rambling.--] (]) 05:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' I agree with the nominator that the current title is sub-ideal, but I don't think the proposed title is an improvement. A merge to ] might be an option. ] (], ]) 04:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
::{{re|Power~enwiki}} Not a bad idea, though this event is notable on its own. I am open to other titles, though the one I proposed seems to be the most suitable for now.--] (]) 05:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. (a) the common name of the country should be used; (b) the date in the title is also in the infobox. If there is a reliable source with a different start date, then the article can be changed to that. ]] (]) 10:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

{{ping|Panam2014|Eyesnore|Cambalachero|The Photographer|SandyGeorgia|Jamez42|Softlavender}} Contacting neutral users that have been involved in similar topics in the past.--] (]) 17:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
* '''Strongly support''' ]. --] (]) 19:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

*'''Support''' Similar concerns have been raised in the Spanish Misplaced Pages, including in article names such as ], ], ] and ], some of which have been changed. I think the current proposal is an important precedent to improve related articles and that it gives the reader a better context. I would suggest a title such as "Crisis during Maduro's presidency", but the current situation is also a result of many actions undertook by the Bolivarian administration over a long span of years. I'll ping {{u|Oscar_.}} as well, who might also be interested. --] (]) 03:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
:: I think that any dates for the "start" of the crisis are original research; it's not like ] where there's a clear event on a specific date that started the crisis. Adjusting the article to focus on Maduro's presidency might be an improvement. ] (], ]) 21:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' as insufficiently clear to English-language readers. I've simply seen it referred to as "the Venezuelan crisis", which is the short, simple, and ] name, just like "the Greek crisis", "the Colombian conflict", etc. Moreover, there is lack of clarity (including in the articles themselves) on the meaning of the ], the ], and the ]. The current redirect from ] to the current title solves any issues with people trying to search for or link to it that way. -- ] (]) 05:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

{{comment}} I've not been much active lately, but I also find quite odd to understand the "Bolivarian" mentions. As per {{u|Jamez42}} mention, I think we're dealing with apples and oranges, in es.wiki the main issue was about the timeline of the protests (the 2014 protests really ended? and how they ended), eventually that discussion led to different articles with similar thematic but the ] is similar to this one in English. Also, there's another specially focused in the ].--] (]) 16:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
: Bolivarian Venezuela, while not at all clear to contemporary readers, is the current legal name of the country, and likely to be used in the future to refer to the Chavez-Maduro governments. ] (], ]) 21:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
::No, the legal name of the country is "Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela". ]] (]) 23:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
:::{{re|Power~enwiki|StAnselm}} I think what power~enwiki means is that the name that will most likely go down in history for this government will be "Bolivarian Venezuela" much like ], etc. This is what I was trying to say (you can clear this up power~enwiki if I'm misinterpreting this). Possibly we can meet in the middle and title it '''Crisis in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela'''? Much like the ] was divided into three "''reichs''", Venezuela is currently the ]. Though the official title of Germany between 1871 and 1943 was "German ''Reich''", we recognize each ''reich'' by their "]", the ], the ] and ]. This would be the same for Venezuela. Like Nazi Germany, Venezuela is currently Bolivarian Venezuela.--] (]) 00:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
::::I think you're stretching things a little bit {{u|ZiaLater}}, yes, the legal name is Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, yes, this period of time 'could' be referred as Bolivarian Venezuela, but it's ] to move this article (and others related) to this term? Sorry but I don't see it. --] (]) 13:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

{{ping|Eyesnore|Cambalachero|The Photographer|SandyGeorgia|Shelbyhoward423}} Any final opinions?--] (]) 01:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' IMHO The fusion is necesary and the final title will be more descriptive for anybody. "Bolivarian" period is a easy way to ecognize the timeline when it happend, when the country name was changed. --] (]) 01:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' we use the common name of countries here. "Mexico" instead of "United Mexican States", "North Korea" instead of "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", "Russia" instead of "Russian Federation", etc. "Bolivarian Venezuela" is very rarely used in English - the country is almost always referred to simply as "Venezuela". If there is an issue of imprecise timing, then that should be fixed by finding better sources on dating, rather than by bringing in a descriptor that is rarely used and that most people don't recognize. Additionally, as to the crisis itself, I've read "crisis in Venezuela" and "Venezuelan crisis" used frequently in newspapers and such, but never "crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela" - it is not a common name. ] (]) 03:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
----
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->

== There is now a book on this subject, which can be used as a source for this article ==
It's called ''The Maduro Diet: How three-quarters of adults in Venezuela lost an average of 19 pounds in 2016''.

] (]) 10:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

== Infobox Casualties ==
The Infobox mentions the data about Casualties related to the opposition, but does not present any information on casualties suffered by Government forces. I can recall policemen being injured or even killed in Caracas after a . If there is not an official or independent statistic, what should be our course of action? Or does the infobox present the combined causalities of government and opposition groups? <span style="background:deeppink"> ] </span> 02:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

:{{re|user:Jp16103}} It is combined casualties. It looks like it is under the opposition side, but that's just how the infobox displays it.----] (]) 02:31, 2 June 2018 (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:
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2018-07-25T13:08:24.309091 | Hugo Chávez - Simón Bolívar.jpg -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. ] (]) 13:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

== Requested move 6 August 2018 ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

The result of the move request was: '''move''' the page to ] at this time, per the discussion below. There is no consensus as to a correct date to use, but there is general consensus that this is the primary crisis in Venezuela being referred to by the search string, and the title can be treated as ] which obviates the need for it to be the common name. The disambiguation page is linked in a new hatnote to solve any lingering ambiguity. ]<small>]</small> 02:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
----

] → {{no redirect|Crisis in Venezuela (2010–present)}} – Previously moved this to the proposed title, but it was deemed controversial. The current title with the "(2012-present)" is as to when the crisis began. However, sources give us a definitive date of 2 June 2010,</nowiki>]</nowiki>]</nowiki>] when President Chávez first declared an "economic war" because of shortages in Venezuela. The current title has no support from sources and (2010-present) should be used due to the support of reliable sources. --] (]) 15:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC) <small>--'''''Relisting.''''' ] <sup>'']'' &#124; '']''</sup> 15:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)</small>

{{ping|Knowledgekid87}} Since you were just involved in the move of ], could you take a look at this proposal as well?----] (]) 16:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
*'''Question''': the sources mentioned are from 2010. Are there any sources that date the current crisis to that event? ]] (]) 18:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

::{{re|User:StAnselm}} No, unfortunately there are only reactionary articles created by sources, nothing analytical. The international spotlight does not touch Venezuela until something drastic happens. 2011: Venezuela enters a housing crisis. 2012: Venezuela enters crisis because of Chávez's health. 2013: Venezuela enters crisis as Maduro begins presidency under the burden of Chávez's previous policies. 2014: Venezuela enters crisis as mass protests occur. 2015: Venezuela enters crisis due to declining oil profits. 2016: Venezuela enters crisis with referendum against Maduro. 2017: Venezuela enters constitutional crisis and experiences mass protests. I hope you see the pattern...

::The closest date we have is 2 June 2010, when Chávez declared an "economic war", with that "war" being continued by his successor, Nicolás Maduro. The "economic war" ] has seen continuous use since that day in 2010, which helps cement the fact that the crisis began in that period. During that time, the bolivar was devalued, ] appeared and other massive economic measures were taken as part of Chavez's "economic war". Though this can partially be attributed to the ], Venezuela had hardly left its recession in 2011 (housing crisis) and by 2012, the crisis began to worsen (shortages), especially after large amounts of imports were purchased in the months before the 2012 elections. Overall, 2010 gives us a good date, there is hardly a defined crisis before then but there are plenty of issues after that.----] (]) 20:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. The 2 June 2010 date, while very precise, is actually rather arbitrary, and is not supported by reliable sources. Perhaps future historians will see this date as the start of the crisis; perhaps not. My best suggestion is ]. We could revisit the title in a couple of years if it's still going on. ]] (]) 22:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

::{{re|User:StAnselm}} That article title is a good suggestion. Giving a specific date right now is fairly difficult so giving a more general title could also help.----] (]) 16:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' any start-date we pick is arbitrary; I don't see 2010 being better than 2012. I previously suggested a merge to ]; a better option may be to rename that ] and this article ]. ] (], ]) 22:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

::{{re|User:power~enwiki}} I think that the crisis is significantly different from just a history article. The article goes into the background and mechanisms of the crisis, something too detailed to be an article about history.

{{ping|Kingsif}} You have been invovled lately. What is your opinion? '''Crisis in Venezuela (2010–present)''' or '''2010s crisis in Venezuela'''? Any other suggestions?----] (]) 17:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

::'''Crisis in Venezuela (2010-present)'''. I keep forgetting this isn't the actual name. The "official" date is sometime in 2010, when Chávez basically cut Venezuela off from the US and the oil prospects died. And, since it doesn't seem likely to end in the next year, keeping it at "2010-present" is safer than "2010s". ] (]) 17:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

:'''Support''' I still support "Crisis in Venezuela (2010–present)". Inviting {{ping|User:Knowledgekid87}} {{ping|User:InedibleHulk}} {{ping|User:Jamez42}} {{ping|Cambalachero}} {{ping|Panam2014}} {{ping|User:Oscar .}} {{ping|User:Impru20}} {{ping|User:FallingGravity}}-----] (]) 09:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

::I really wish it was feasible to move the title to just '''Crisis in Venezuela'''. I'm still somewhat against a ''(XXXX-present)'' title due to the same reasons of the protests: the crisis has had ups and downs, some could argue that the victory of the opposition in the parliamentary elections could have been a possible end to the crisis, since it isn't only economic but also political and social as well. While oil prices have been raising and shortages have "improved", there's still a galloping hyperinflation and PDVSA's oil production is worsening. I'm a little inclined for the suggestion of '''2010s crisis in Venezuela''' as a title, since even though 2010 may have been the beginning of the downfall, I know there are many editors and scholars that will disagree. I wish a term as already been coined by experts and that there's a consensus of what the definition should be, but it seems there isn't. --] (]) 09:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

*'''Support''' ] but also ] or ]. --] (]) 12:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

* Why not "Economic crisis in Venezuela", without years? I doubt that Venezuela has had any previous economic crisis of this magnitude, so even if there were other articles that may use such a name, this ne would be the primary topic anyway. ] (]) 12:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

* I'm up for ], as previous comments stated, at this point this crisis is so big that there's no need to differentiate with an starting and ending period, it's more or less like the ]. I'm slightly against called an economic crisis, since there's political and social crisis happening at the same time. --] (]) 15:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
::I have to '''support''' this. Seeing again the disambiguation page ], they're mostly about diplomatic and a couple of banking crises. This is arguably the first large scale political, economic and social crisis in the country. --] (]) 15:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

*'''No opinion''' Just answering the ping. ] ] 00:32, ], ] (UTC)
----
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->

== New navbox template ==
A navbox page template that includes many related pages, should be added to pages alongside the Crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela sidebar. Use Bolivarian Venezuela Crisis|state=collapsed ] (]) 17:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

== Article resembles ] ==
The article is looking like it is copy of ] <code>economy</code> and <code>politics</code> sections. I think it's really needs changes would be nice to create timeline of crisis and navigate through it by describing real events. Any thoughts? <span style="font: 900 0.8em &quot;Lato&quot;">] ] ]</span> 19:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
:That is a common way to start an article. Needs lots of work. ] ] 07:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

== Communism in Cuba? ==
The introduction isn't very clear. The current crisis in Venezuela is greater than the crisis in Russia, Cuba and Albania after the fall of communism? Russia and Albania, ok, but Cuba is still communist. The sentence isn't very clear. ] (]) 21:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
:{{ping|Holy Goo}} I think a previous version specified it was after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Maybe it is a better phrasing. --] (]) 22:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
::I understood that Cuba as well. In any case, the "fall of communism" is the fall of communism as a major force in international geopolitics, in 1989; the text mentions the crises in those countries after that specific point. ] (]) 01:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
:::The comparison is to severity of economic contraction, not to severity of the particular crisis. The subtitle is off-topic. Cuba is not in any particular crisis at present, at least not any that they are not addressing. ] ] 12:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
::::To me the wording reads as discussing specifically the "fall of communism" in the specific sense of what happened in the world in the late 80s and early 90s. In the source the comparison is referring the economic contraction in those countries after the fall of the Soviet Union, not of "communism" in general. There was some degree of economic collapse in Soviet states in the 1990s, including in Cuba, which depended on foreign aid from the USSR which made up a significant part of its GDP. So even though the communist government of Cuba did not collapse at the time, it was affected by the fall of the USSR. I've changed the wording to clarify. ] (]) 19:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

== Oil sector ==
*https://venezuelablog.org/crude-realities-understanding-venezuelas-economic-collapse/ ] ] 17:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Facts from the article: There was a drop in the price of oil. The market has improved now but, after maintaining steady production for many years during the Chavista regime, a drop of production began and continues. Maintaining or increasing production requires continual or increased investment. US sanctions have severely decreased the ability of Venezuela to borrow money to invest in its high cost oil. ] ] 15:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

:Just for the record: even though oil prices hace improved, oil production in PDVSA continues to plummet. This has little to do with the sanctions and is one of the reasons why Maduro recently met with China. --] (]) 16:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

::The author linked in the original post makes the case that sanctions could be blamed for the continued fall in production—he shows that there was an initial drop in production in response to the fall in prices, followed by stabilization. Then US sanctions were introduced which coincided with a much larger drop in production. However, I don't know that this is something that we can include in the article. For one thing, the source doesn't seem to meet RS standards, since it's a blog post written by someone with no clearly established expertise on the subject. Additionally, he makes clear in the article that it's difficult or impossible to establish causality, and that even if sanctions did play a role in the further fall in production, other factors also played major roles. ] (]) 18:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

:::A blog by a recognized expert, ], with clearly established expertise on a subject can be a reliable source. ] ] 06:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


I've taken cursory looks at this article and contributed a small section on the effects of the crisis on the oil regions, that seems to have been appreciated. It seems to me the article is not quite addressing, or emphasizing, the main origins of the crisis which is the two problems of (1) the collapse of oil prices and (2) the failures of the Chavez/Maduro governments (and associated corruption of PDVSA) to maintain oil production. (Perhaps with corruption directed at siphoning oil revenue??? I know nothing of that.) If it were me, I would attempt to reorganize this article around these main points. The article does a good job of describing all the effects of the collapse of oil revenue - the government has little money to spend for its promised social programs, but not how and why that revenue disappeared. For example, a figure showing the decline in oil prices with corresponding crisis points would be interesting.
::Something needs to be done, the crisis was NOT caused by diverting money used for ski vacations in Vail to housing in Caracas... Yet, in a sense it was, managers and engineers did need to maintain a high standard of living if they were expected to continue working. And foreign firms, even Chinese ones, need to feel their investments are safe. ] ] 06:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


(As an aside, I noted the arguments regarding "Socialism" above. I was about to complain about the quote and citation that has been removed from the article, with the observation that citations from the U.S. Department of State can no longer be considered NPOV. A sad state of affairs. The situation in Venezuela has not much to do with socialism and quite a lot to do with oil! (and a lot of economic mismanagement, to be sure) Socialist Norway is one of the wealthiest countries with its oil.) My 2 cents. ] (]) 01:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
:::This is his summary: "An import collapse, caused by the massive decline in oil production, is the main cause of Venezuela’s economic implosion. The fall in oil production began when oil prices plummeted in early 2016 but intensified when the industry lost access to credit markets in 2017." According to him substantial imports are vital to both general welfare and maintenance of oil production. ] ] 08:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
::::I see that the author appears to be a recognized expert on the subject. One thing that makes me hesitate about using this as a source when it comes to his claim about the effect of sanctions on oil production is statements like these: {{tq2|Now, any analysis of causes using a country’s single time-series is speculative at best. Modern quantitative methods can’t offer decisive answers to questions about causality in non-experimental data even with very large data sets. Therefore, what one can say about the causes of the evolution of a single economy’s time trend is very limited. That said, it is still worthwhile to think through different hypotheses and ask whether they would lead to the patterns observed in the data.}}
:::: {{tq2|As we warned previously, these observations should not be taken as decisive proof that sanctions caused the output collapse.}}
:::: {{tq2|The data, however, strongly suggests the need for much more in-depth research on the reasons for Venezuela’s oil output collapse and for the discontinuous behavior in the series.}}
:::: {{tq2|While the evidence presented in this piece should not be taken as decisive proof of such a link, it is suggestive enough to indicate the need for extreme caution in the design of international policy initiatives that may further worsen the lot of Venezuelans.}}
::::That is some very guarded language, which he uses and reinforces throughout the article. He makes it very clear that he is producing hypotheses that could explain the data, hypotheses which he believes merit further investigation, and which should encourage caution among policy-makers. The way I read this, he isn't saying that US sanctions caused a fall in Venezuelan oil production, he's saying they might have contributed, and that further research is needed to see if there is a causal connection. But maybe some of his other statements, those directly about the data, or when he speaks more authoritatively about the oil production collapse itself, could be included. ] (]) 10:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


:As I mentioned before: ''{{talk quote inline|Expropriations, price fixing, subsidies, expansion of social welfare, just to mention some, can all be considered socialist policies}}''. That being said, it would be completely appropriate to include some background, if I'm not mistaken this has been proposed before to talk about the history of Petróleos de Venezuela. Even though it has hired more workers over the year, its production at first stayed the same, and Rafael Ramírez's direction deserves analysis. --] (]) 19:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
{{od}}The lede contains this flat statement: "The crisis was the result of ] policies that began under the Chávez administration's ]." It is not guarded at all, simply stated as fact. Many sources are cited. I have not gone through them all yet, but those I did look at seem dubious. ] ] 13:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
:This very source contains the line {{tq|To say that the policies of Chávez and Maduro are to blame for this collapse is both true and trivial. Chavismo has been in power for almost twenty years now, so it is obvious that pretty much anything that is happening in Venezuela now – expect perhaps for last month’s earthquake – is the direct or indirect consequence of what it has done while running the country.}} To me, that reads as a confirmation that the crisis is ultimately to blame on the policies of Chavez and Maduro. ] (]) 22:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


::I would not normally reply in such a situation (endless, pointless arguments are not my thing...), but I see where you are from and your intention - I have all the sympathies in the world for Venezuela. What you are referring to with expropriations, price fixing, etc. has more to do with totalitarianism, in a communist style, than socialism. Norway does not expropriate or price fix or subsidize! Really, one cannot describe these situations with a simple political label - and "socialism" is such a broad term that can be used, interpreted, or understood in countlessly different ways. I am offering no opinion one way or the other on socialism, I just point out it is more complicated than a label. Meanwhile, on another galactic plane, the right wing elements in the United States are attempting to label the crisis in Venezuela as a consequence of socialism, attempting to use Venezuela as a clear example of how bad socialism is. Their idea is that if that line of thought is followed, they can then more easily dismantle things like social security, medicare, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in the United States. This was the obvious basis for the unfortunate statement from the U.S. State Department that was removed from this article. All of this nonsense is best left out of the article and out of the talk page discussion. If we must use a label for the Venezuelan situation/governance, "rigidly ideological", "incompetence", "self-preservation", or "ignorance" would be a far better, more accurate words.
== Humanitarian assistance ==
::In my view, the weaknesses in the Venezuelan economy/system were becoming evident during the Chavez years - see the quote from 2005 I added by Brossard in this article. The collapse in oil prices then greatly aggravated the situation, with the political hacks then running PDVSA adding fuel to the fire (so to speak...by mismanaging oil production). Then it seems obvious that, among other errors, Venezuela started madly printing money, giving the hyperinflation and causing even more real pain, if that were possible. The hyperinflation is reminiscent of the ] of post-world war I Germany - (a government that was not socialist...) If one had to put a label on the present day Venezuelan government it would be "totalitarian". Interestingly, previous Venezuelan dictators survived by cooperating with and exploiting the American oil companies - (I've recently been reading: M.T. Salas (2009). The Enduring Legacy: Oil, Culture, and Society in Venezuela. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 344 pp. ISBN 978-0-8223-9223-1) an avenue that Maduro does not have.
*https://www.france24.com/en/20180927-un-asks-venezuela-accept-humanitarian-aid ] ] 17:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
::I do not know how/if the Russians/Chinese/Iranians are having any significant influence on events - my impression is they are still mostly non-entities. Via con dios, Venezuela. ] (]) 23:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


:::{{ping|Bdushaw}} Thank you very much for your wishes. Even though I could disagree with the definitions, you are right for the most part. Taking care about ], I have expressed my regret about how Venezuela has become an excuse for fearmongering in other talk pages and I hope it doesn't generate confusion or distractions to improve the articles. I think it's badly needed for more people to be informed, and it's good to see these kinds of arguments and discourse. Bendiciones. --] (]) 00:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
== Debt ==
*https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/business/energy-environment/venezuela-citgo-oil-sanctions.html ] ] 07:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


::::Regarding oil, in Forbes today. The theme of the article is along the lines of my original intent in posting on this talk page. The present crisis has its origins in the mismanagement and corruption of oil resources. ] (]) 19:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
== Requested move 28 January 2019 ==
:Sorry to burst your bubble, but Norway is about as socialist as a duck is a moose. ] (]) 17:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
== Reliable sources ==
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''


Are ] and ] reliable sources for this article? ] (]) 11:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: '''Not moved''': consensus is against the move, as {{u|AjaxSmack}} points out, the title does refer largely to the content. <small>(])</small> '''<span style="font-family: Arial">] ]</span>''' 21:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping|Bobfrombrockley}} There have been discussions on Tasnim's reliability in the past (], ], ]), where concerns about reliability and antisemitism have been raised, although I don't know it well enough to comment on it. On the other hand, Orinico Tribune is part of the ], meaning that it is not an independent source. I have removed the latter from the article. --] (]) 17:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
----


==Deletion of Greenwald's piece in ''The Intercept''==


] deleted from Glenn Greenwald's piece in ''The Intercept'' on the grounds that it violates ]. (I should point out that this editor , while adding other material at the same time.) I would argue the opposite: this policy pertains more to opinions of editors and not necessarily those published in reliable sources, especially once proper attribution is applied. As such, the material is properly attributed to Greenwald and published in a reliable source. In addition, given the controversial nature of this particular event, the early 2019 humanitarian aid package sent by the US per the Trump Administration, the point of view is perhaps ] given the Administration was deliberately using the aid package to undermine the current Venezuelan government, as reported in other reliable sources ( and ) and even from the agency that provided the relief (]) - this unbelievably is not even mentioned in the article. Based on this, and what is stated in WP:OPINION: “Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know: Who advocates the point of view; What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)”, I believe the Greenwald material should be restored and perhaps augmented with these sources and others as this point of view is completely omitted from this section.--] (]) 15:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
* ] → {{no redirect|History of Venezuela (2010–2019)}}
* ] → {{no redirect|History of Venezuela (1999–2010)}}
– We now have an actual crisis on our hands, that is the ultimate outcome of the events described here. It has a separate article at ]. I propose that this title redirect to that page, and the content here go to an article on the history of the country. ] (], ]) 20:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


:Criticism regarding the 2019 shipment of aid is already covered in the section, specifically from the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations, the latter of which warned against the politicization of the aid. The point of view is covered by more prominent sources, which more importantly leads to the question: what is the importance of adding specifically Glenn Greenwald here? I don't think its inclusion is due for these reasons, particularly given that this is an article about the Crisis in general and not the main one (where, from what I understand, it was also removed for the same reason). --] (]) 16:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
*I agree with the nominator's sentiments, but the article as it stands is organized as an article about a crisis. It would need some changes to actually be a {{no redirect|History of Venezuela (2010–2019)}}. However, it might be enough to merge {{section link|History of Venezuela (1999–present)|From 2009: Term limits eliminated and alleged human rights abuses}} into the {{no redirect|Crisis in Venezuela}} article. — ] 00:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
*So which article do I check to find out about something that happened in 2010? ] (]) 01:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
* {{disagree}} with making this History; either leave as is, or change to Bolivarian crisis in Venezuela ] (]) 01:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
* {{disagree}} This is a separate article about the overall crisis, not an event that occurred during it.----] (]) 14:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
* {{disagree}} Last time we had a discussion on how this is the worst crisis Venezuela has had.--] (]) 14:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': Some of the article details should be build on in the article ], however, an article focusing on the crisis such as this one should stay. ] (]) 01:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
----
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this ] or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.''<!-- Template:RM bottom --></div>


:{{ping|C.J. Griffin}} Many thanks . I believe they're an improvement regarding the last version. They could be moved to the article directly, but I have no strong feelings regarding this. Best wishes, --] (]) 20:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
== Structural Bias and Deficient Sources ==
::I'm glad we could find some common ground on this. I felt this was better and more pertinent material than simply restoring Greenwald's opinion. It looks like it is already mentioned in the article ], and I'm just seeing this now. Given it's not a copy and paste I think both articles benefit from mentioning it.--] (]) 21:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


== Move discussion in progress ==
The articles referenced in support of the statement "Observers and economists have stated that the crisis is not the result of a conflict or natural disaster but the consequences of populist policies that began under the Chávez administration's Bolivarian Revolution" in the first paragraph of this article appear to be cherrypicked and creates a single narrative when there are many. The is from the The Chosun Ilbo (Hangul: 조선일보; Hanja: 朝鮮日報). The article itself appears to cite no sources and The Chosun Ilbo is itself recognized by Misplaced Pages as a conservative newspaper. There is also no information available in English on the author of the article. It is for those reasons that I'm skeptical about the quality of this source. Furthermore, I think citing sources on the English version of this page which readers are likely unable to read, and thus unable to critically engage with, is detrimental to this wikipedia page. There is essentially no way for someone who cannot read Korean to engage with this source and no way for them to verify for themselves the veracity of the source.


There is a move discussion in progress on ] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Talk:Venezuelan crisis (disambiguation)#Requested move 28 June 2023 crosspost --> —] 03:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
The to evince the statement in question is from the Independent Institute, a think tank which subscribes to a pro-free market position. It seems obvious that this think tank would have a vested interest in claiming that the policies pursued by the government of Venezuela are the cause behind the current crisis. The author, Robert P. Murphy, has been reproved for his opinions on matters like quantitative easing by more reputable economists like Brad DeLong and Paul Krugman. cited is also from a Libertarian think tank. The only data this Cato article cites is a study conducted by the Cato Institute itself. Its lack of informational value is only made worse by the overtly hostile position taken by the article.


== Sanction ==
My point is not to argue that the position set forth by these sources is incorrect, but that their presentation in the Misplaced Pages article serves to mislead readers into believing that this is the only opinion expressed by "Observers and economists". The use of the term "Observers and economists" is itself misleading as it depicts the authors of the articles cited as unbiased when upon investigation they are clearly partisan. These are not merely observers and economists, they are conservative commentators and free-market advocates. Without a thorough discussion on the proposed causes behind the current crisis and a fair presentation of arguments from a variety of positions it seems this wikipedia page is being used to push a certain narrative. The poor quality of the sources cited is also troublesome. ] (]) 04:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


Sanction imposed by the west to target the government. ] (]) 12:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
:<s>You make sense. I would fix the problem but I do not want to start an edit war.] (]) 12:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)</s><small> ] --] (]) 03:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC) </small>


:Those… are mentioned. I mean, they could be more prominent, but Misplaced Pages is bound to be a summary of what reputable English language (western) media say. Making sanctions more prominent as the things to blame for economic problems may be seen as taking a stance that is against the reputable media/experts, which is something editors aren't supposed to do. ] (]) 19:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
: Unfortunately, so long as you stick to a neoliberal narrative, people tend to take WP:RS to mean "write with bias so long as you can find a newspaper that says the same thing as you". That's how it is and since you will be hugely outnumbered, you can't do anything about an article like this, which is very little more than propaganda. It's unfortunate that Misplaced Pages scores high with Google because the impressionable think this is a useful source. When, in fact, it tends to represent the views of the most committed people who work on each article. ] (]) 01:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:38, 21 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Crisis in Venezuela 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: 30 days 
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconVenezuela Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Venezuela, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Venezuela on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VenezuelaWikipedia:WikiProject VenezuelaTemplate:WikiProject VenezuelaVenezuela
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEconomics Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFinance & Investment Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject icon2010s Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
The contents of the Venezuelan economic crisis of 2016 page were merged into Crisis in Venezuela on 2017. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

A comment - oil, Oil, OIL!

I've taken cursory looks at this article and contributed a small section on the effects of the crisis on the oil regions, that seems to have been appreciated. It seems to me the article is not quite addressing, or emphasizing, the main origins of the crisis which is the two problems of (1) the collapse of oil prices and (2) the failures of the Chavez/Maduro governments (and associated corruption of PDVSA) to maintain oil production. (Perhaps with corruption directed at siphoning oil revenue??? I know nothing of that.) If it were me, I would attempt to reorganize this article around these main points. The article does a good job of describing all the effects of the collapse of oil revenue - the government has little money to spend for its promised social programs, but not how and why that revenue disappeared. For example, a figure showing the decline in oil prices with corresponding crisis points would be interesting.

(As an aside, I noted the arguments regarding "Socialism" above. I was about to complain about the quote and citation that has been removed from the article, with the observation that citations from the U.S. Department of State can no longer be considered NPOV. A sad state of affairs. The situation in Venezuela has not much to do with socialism and quite a lot to do with oil! (and a lot of economic mismanagement, to be sure) Socialist Norway is one of the wealthiest countries with its oil.) My 2 cents. Bdushaw (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned before: Expropriations, price fixing, subsidies, expansion of social welfare, just to mention some, can all be considered socialist policies. That being said, it would be completely appropriate to include some background, if I'm not mistaken this has been proposed before to talk about the history of Petróleos de Venezuela. Even though it has hired more workers over the year, its production at first stayed the same, and Rafael Ramírez's direction deserves analysis. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I would not normally reply in such a situation (endless, pointless arguments are not my thing...), but I see where you are from and your intention - I have all the sympathies in the world for Venezuela. What you are referring to with expropriations, price fixing, etc. has more to do with totalitarianism, in a communist style, than socialism. Norway does not expropriate or price fix or subsidize! Really, one cannot describe these situations with a simple political label - and "socialism" is such a broad term that can be used, interpreted, or understood in countlessly different ways. I am offering no opinion one way or the other on socialism, I just point out it is more complicated than a label. Meanwhile, on another galactic plane, the right wing elements in the United States are attempting to label the crisis in Venezuela as a consequence of socialism, attempting to use Venezuela as a clear example of how bad socialism is. Their idea is that if that line of thought is followed, they can then more easily dismantle things like social security, medicare, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in the United States. This was the obvious basis for the unfortunate statement from the U.S. State Department that was removed from this article. All of this nonsense is best left out of the article and out of the talk page discussion. If we must use a label for the Venezuelan situation/governance, "rigidly ideological", "incompetence", "self-preservation", or "ignorance" would be a far better, more accurate words.
In my view, the weaknesses in the Venezuelan economy/system were becoming evident during the Chavez years - see the quote from 2005 I added by Brossard in this article. The collapse in oil prices then greatly aggravated the situation, with the political hacks then running PDVSA adding fuel to the fire (so to speak...by mismanaging oil production). Then it seems obvious that, among other errors, Venezuela started madly printing money, giving the hyperinflation and causing even more real pain, if that were possible. The hyperinflation is reminiscent of the Weimar Republic of post-world war I Germany - (a government that was not socialist...) If one had to put a label on the present day Venezuelan government it would be "totalitarian". Interestingly, previous Venezuelan dictators survived by cooperating with and exploiting the American oil companies - (I've recently been reading: M.T. Salas (2009). The Enduring Legacy: Oil, Culture, and Society in Venezuela. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 344 pp. ISBN 978-0-8223-9223-1) an avenue that Maduro does not have.
I do not know how/if the Russians/Chinese/Iranians are having any significant influence on events - my impression is they are still mostly non-entities. Via con dios, Venezuela. Bdushaw (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
@Bdushaw: Thank you very much for your wishes. Even though I could disagree with the definitions, you are right for the most part. Taking care about WP:FORUM, I have expressed my regret about how Venezuela has become an excuse for fearmongering in other talk pages and I hope it doesn't generate confusion or distractions to improve the articles. I think it's badly needed for more people to be informed, and it's good to see these kinds of arguments and discourse. Bendiciones. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Regarding oil, this article in Forbes today. The theme of the article is along the lines of my original intent in posting on this talk page. The present crisis has its origins in the mismanagement and corruption of oil resources. Bdushaw (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Norway is about as socialist as a duck is a moose. Dunutubble (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Are Tasnim News Agency and Orinico Tribune reliable sources for this article? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: There have been discussions on Tasnim's reliability in the past (Iranian media, news agencies, and revolutionary departments, Tasnim, RfC: PressTV), where concerns about reliability and antisemitism have been raised, although I don't know it well enough to comment on it. On the other hand, Orinico Tribune is part of the Bolivarian Communication and Information System, meaning that it is not an independent source. I have removed the latter from the article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Greenwald's piece in The Intercept

User:NoonIcarus deleted this material from Glenn Greenwald's piece in The Intercept on the grounds that it violates WP:OPINION. (I should point out that this editor first deleted it without explanation, while adding other material at the same time.) I would argue the opposite: this policy pertains more to opinions of editors and not necessarily those published in reliable sources, especially once proper attribution is applied. As such, the material is properly attributed to Greenwald and published in a reliable source. In addition, given the controversial nature of this particular event, the early 2019 humanitarian aid package sent by the US per the Trump Administration, the point of view is perhaps WP:DUE given the Administration was deliberately using the aid package to undermine the current Venezuelan government, as reported in other reliable sources (here and here) and even from the agency that provided the relief (USAID) - this unbelievably is not even mentioned in the article. Based on this, and what is stated in WP:OPINION: “Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know: Who advocates the point of view; What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)”, I believe the Greenwald material should be restored and perhaps augmented with these sources and others as this point of view is completely omitted from this section.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Criticism regarding the 2019 shipment of aid is already covered in the section, specifically from the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations, the latter of which warned against the politicization of the aid. The point of view is covered by more prominent sources, which more importantly leads to the question: what is the importance of adding specifically Glenn Greenwald here? I don't think its inclusion is due for these reasons, particularly given that this is an article about the Crisis in general and not the main one (where, from what I understand, it was also removed for the same reason). --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
@C.J. Griffin: Many thanks for the last changes. I believe they're an improvement regarding the last version. They could be moved to the article directly, but I have no strong feelings regarding this. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm glad we could find some common ground on this. I felt this was better and more pertinent material than simply restoring Greenwald's opinion. It looks like it is already mentioned in the article 2019 shipping of humanitarian aid to Venezuela, and I'm just seeing this now. Given it's not a copy and paste I think both articles benefit from mentioning it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Venezuelan crisis (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Sanction

Sanction imposed by the west to target the government. 2600:1702:31A:7910:B920:B258:5643:9356 (talk) 12:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Those… are mentioned. I mean, they could be more prominent, but Misplaced Pages is bound to be a summary of what reputable English language (western) media say. Making sanctions more prominent as the things to blame for economic problems may be seen as taking a stance that is against the reputable media/experts, which is something editors aren't supposed to do. Samolukadjo (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: