Misplaced Pages

Talk:Crisis in Venezuela

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grace Note (talk | contribs) at 01:44, 6 February 2019 (→Structural Bias and Deficient Sources: yeah). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:44, 6 February 2019 by Grace Note (talk | contribs) (→Structural Bias and Deficient Sources: yeah)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconVenezuela C‑class 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
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
The contents of the Crisis in Venezuela page were merged into Venezuelan economic crisis of 2016 on 2017. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history.

Orphaned references in Crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela'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.

Reference named "http":

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. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested moves

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move Crisis in Venezuela (2013-present) to Crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela, which was performed by Anthony Appleyard.--ZiaLater (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Bolivarian Revolution? Or Bolivarianism? If this is about "Bolivarian Venezuela", what other Venezuelas are there? StAnselm (talk) 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.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crisis in Venezuela (2012–present). 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 17 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. 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. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Crisis in Venezuela (2012–present) → Crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela – The official name of the sovereign state is the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the current government is commonly referred to in both the media and scholarly documents across the political spectrum as the "Bolivarian government"., , , , Hands Off Venezuela There is no concensus as to when the date of the crisis began since it began before Maduro's presidency. The Bolivarian government also "denied and continues denying that Venezuela has a humanitarian crisis". 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. ZiaLater (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: Well, historically the term "Venezuelan crisis" has been used to describe international crises, such as the Venezuelan crisis of 1895 and the Venezuelan crisis of 1902–03. 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 Great Recession 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 Great Tenmei famine (the Tenmei era) and the Tenpō famine (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 Finnish famine of 1866–1868 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.--ZiaLater (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@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.--ZiaLater (talk) 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. StAnselm (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014, Eyesnore, Cambalachero, The Photographer, SandyGeorgia, Jamez42, and Softlavender: Contacting neutral users that have been involved in similar topics in the past.--ZiaLater (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that any dates for the "start" of the crisis are original research; it's not like 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis 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. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: I've not been much active lately, but I also find quite odd to understand the "Bolivarian" mentions. As per 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 article of the crisis is similar to this one in English. Also, there's another specially focused in the economic meltdown.--Oscar_. (talk) 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. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
No, the legal name of the country is "Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela". StAnselm (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@Power~enwiki and 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 Soviet Ukraine, 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 German Reich was divided into three "reichs", Venezuela is currently the Fifth Republic of Venezuela. Though the official title of Germany between 1871 and 1943 was "German Reich", we recognize each reich by their "unofficial, historical designation", the German Empire, the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany. This would be the same for Venezuela. Like Nazi Germany, Venezuela is currently Bolivarian Venezuela.--ZiaLater (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I think you're stretching things a little bit ZiaLater, yes, the legal name is Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, yes, this period of time 'could' be referred as Bolivarian Venezuela, but it's convenient to move this article (and others related) to this term? Sorry but I don't see it. --Oscar_. (talk) 13:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Eyesnore, Cambalachero, The Photographer, SandyGeorgia, and Shelbyhoward423: Any final opinions?--ZiaLater (talk) 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. --The_Photographer (talk) 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. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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.

71.182.244.211 (talk) 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 bombing in the street. 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? Jp16103 02:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jp16103: It is combined casualties. It looks like it is under the opposition side, but that's just how the infobox displays it.----ZiaLater (talk) 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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 6 August 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the page to Crisis in Venezuela 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 descriptive 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. Dekimasuよ! 02:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Crisis in Venezuela (2012–present) → 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 the result of my own interpretation as to when the crisis began. However, sources give us a definitive date of 2 June 2010, 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. --ZiaLater (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 15:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Since you were just involved in the move of 2018 Caracas Bombing, could you take a look at this proposal as well?----ZiaLater (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@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" buzzphrase 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, DolarToday appeared and other massive economic measures were taken as part of Chavez's "economic war". Though this can partially be attributed to the Great Recession, 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.----ZiaLater (talk) 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 2010s crisis in Venezuela. We could revisit the title in a couple of years if it's still going on. StAnselm (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@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.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
@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.

@Kingsif: You have been invovled lately. What is your opinion? Crisis in Venezuela (2010–present) or 2010s crisis in Venezuela? Any other suggestions?----ZiaLater (talk) 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". Kingsif (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Support I still support "Crisis in Venezuela (2010–present)". Inviting @Knowledgekid87: @InedibleHulk: @Jamez42: @Cambalachero: @Panam2014: @Oscar .: @Impru20: @FallingGravity:-----ZiaLater (talk) 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. --Jamez42 (talk) 09:28, 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. Cambalachero (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm up for Crisis in Venezuela, 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 Federal War. I'm slightly against called an economic crisis, since there's political and social crisis happening at the same time. --Oscar_. (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I have to support this. Seeing again the disambiguation page Venezuelan crisis, 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. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Kingsif (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Article resembles Venezuela

The article is looking like it is copy of Venezuela economy and politics 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? DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 19:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

That is a common way to start an article. Needs lots of work. User:Fred Bauder Talk 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. Holy Goo (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Holy Goo: I think a previous version specified it was after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Maybe it is a better phrasing. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I understood that Cuba is in the process of leaving Communism 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. Cambalachero (talk) 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. User:Fred Bauder Talk 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. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Oil sector

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. User:Fred Bauder Talk 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. --Jamez42 (talk) 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. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
A blog by a recognized expert, Francisco Rodríguez (economist), with clearly established expertise on a subject can be a reliable source. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
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. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:15, 24 September 2018 (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. User:Fred Bauder Talk 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:

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.

As we warned previously, these observations should not be taken as decisive proof that sanctions caused the output collapse.

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.

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. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The lede contains this flat statement: "The crisis was the result of populist policies that began under the Chávez administration's Bolivarian Revolution." 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. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

This very source contains the line 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. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Humanitarian assistance

Debt

Requested move 28 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved: consensus is against the move, as AjaxSmack points out, the title does refer largely to the content. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


– 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 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. I propose that this title redirect to that page, and the content here go to an article on the history of the country. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Structural Bias and Deficient Sources

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 first articled cited 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.

The second source cited 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. The third sourcecited 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.

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. 逆縁 (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

You make sense. I would fix the problem but I do not want to start an edit war.Simon1811 (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Jamez42 (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2019 (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. Grace Note (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Categories: