Talk:Foreign involvement in the Venezuelan presidential crisis/Archive 1

Archive 1

POV

This newly created article makes no pretense at neutrality,[1] relying almost exclusively on biased and non-reliable sources.

As but one (of many) examples, one need only look at the numerous high quality and reliable sources at 2019 Venezuelan blackouts to see the problems in that section here.

As another example of the POV and cherrypicking of biased sources here, relative to the "military attack" (inappropriately named) section, one can see this reliably sourced section at 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis.

This article is a crude POV fork of content addressed reliably elsewhere. I have proposed this content be merged to another article, with a redirect from POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

With this version, the article has been rewritten to reliable sources, but there is still considerable cleanup needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: in my POV the article needs some facts such as this cheers. AbDaryaee (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

References

@AbDaryaee: there is no rush. Wait for the highest quality secondary sources to cover it, then add it. Remember to cite the secondary source, as well as the primary source (the White House press release). But this kind of addition is best constructed if you wait for The Washington Post or The New York Times, and you make sure to add any rebuttals as well. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Here you are AbDaryaee (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Russian involvement

Bellingcat published an investigatiomn regarding the involvement in Venezuela, I'll leave the link here to include further information. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is subpar and not of Wikipedia quality. It’s biased, and uses references that disagree with the posters information. See section “background” and links to article about Chávez having complete control over government while poster frames section as otherwise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1519:c70b:e802:8b11:2fe0:2492 (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Renaming an article (U.S. intervention in Venezuela)

[Moved from my talkpage. SilkTork (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)]

Best greetings to you. Some days ago, I had created an article by the name of "U.S. intervention in Venezuela", but a user (Jamez42) renamed the title to "Foreign involvement during the Venezuelan presidential crisis" although there was/is disagreement for such change, from first. And even I mentioned in the AFD that: "...this title ("U.S. intervention in Venezuela") is the best related-subject to present the concept of the article; and such phrase is notable enough based on news/media to have an independent page..."

On the other hand, another user (Mhhossein) expressed his disagreement for this change, and mentioned (in AFD [2]) about the necessary of request for such rename (to see others' view). E.g., in reaction to such rename, Mhhossein said: "This is not how we decide on the titles. I suggest you make a move request after the AFD is closed" --but-- Jamez42 renamed it without starting to survey the view of others. Afterwards, I'd undo this rename (to return it to its first title), but seemingly I hadn't/haven't such option to undo that. So, I appreciate your help --to solve the discussion (to return its first name). Thank you. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ali Ahwazi:, what you are doing is called "forum/admin shopping" and it is a discouraged practice. You were already asked in the talk page of another uninvolved admin if you discussed the issue with me, which you have not. I can continue the discussion that we had at the talk page and the AfD before, but I feel it would be easier if we talked this directly. Best regards, --Jamez42 (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The name of an article should reflect the contents. If the article is about U.S. intervention in Venezuela, then that would be the appropriate name. If the article is about Foreign involvement during the Venezuelan presidential crisis then that would be the appropriate name. It may be appropriate to have two articles - one focusing on U.S. involvement/intervention in Venezuela/ the Venezuelan presidential crisis, the other focusing on Foreign involvement during the Venezuelan presidential crisis. These are matters for editorial discussion on the talkpage of the article. SilkTork (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@SilkTork: To be frank, Jamez42 hijacked the article by moving the former title, despite the clear objections, and then changing the title. Anyway, we can now have two separate articles. @Jamez42: You had to start a discussion before making such a contested move, specially when you are advised not to do so before making the move. @Ali Ahwazi: I suggest re-creating an article focusing on the previous title. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

This conversation needs to take place on the article talkpage, not my usertalkpage. I shall move it there now. SilkTork (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

My view is that any attempt to separate the two, or focusing exclusively on the U.S., would be POV; foreign intervention is a neutral name, avoiding content forking. It is simply not possible to discuss U.S. involvement in Venezuela while leaving out Cuba, Russia, China, Syria, Iran, Turkey, etcetera. Without getting in to the extreme POV present in the first version created by Mhhossein Ali Ahwazi,[3] POV content forking is discouraged; I do not agree that a U.S. intervention is warranted or should be created, and I do not believe it is possible to write that content neutrally without covering foreign intervention. For exclusive focus on US-Venezuela, we already have United States–Venezuela relations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm very glad this discussion was moved to this talk page. My move was, as I stated in my edit summary, per WP:BOLD and the title suggestions in the AfD, and for almost a week now such move wasn't disputed in this talk page. Notice that I changed "intervention" with "involvement", and I think it is very important to establish this difference to prevent original research and recentism. I, too, see the "U.S. intervention in Venezuela" very troublesome for these reasons, and I personally think tht the current title fits the current information.

I advise against and strongly oppose starting again a separate article; besides my concerns, it seems to be too narrow of a subject that could fit other articles, such as Regime change by the United States of the United States-Venezuela relations. If we were to create this article, would this include the mediation of the United States between the United Kingdom and Venezuela in the Guayana Esequiba territorial dispute? What about the intervention of Theodore Roosevelt to end a naval blockade in Venezuelan shores? Would we talk about other historic interventions, such as the British Legions that helped Venezuela obtain indepence from Spain? When we look at moments before the Bolivarian Revolution, we see another reason of why the proposed change can violate WP:NPOV. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm talking about a very basic rule; "you may request a page move...if the retitling is expected to be controversial and you need to seek consensus for the name change."(WP:MOVE) Regardless of whether or not your move was justified, you had to discuss it with other active editors. I'm not sure if we can label your edit as "Bold" since your move was clearly objected on AFD. Also, since you had not started any RM discussions no one could say whether or not they were against the move. All in all, I felt offended by your move, specially since I had asked to start a request. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: You accused me of having done something POVish. Are you sure it was me? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:, my sincere apologies; I have struck and corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

At first, I appreciate/support the significant point which was mentioned by "Mhhossein" (regarding "the necessity of consensus for re-titling". On the other hand, for instance, if we have an article on U.S. intervention in Chile, we should be able to have an (independent) article on U.S. intervention in Venezuela, too; particularly by paying heed that: by doing a related research (searching the phrase of "U.S. intervention in Venezuela), the result can show/prove us that it is a notable phrase in media and news (as an independent phrase/subject), but other countries' intervention in venezuela (e.g. the phrase of "X-country intervention in Venezuela" is not notable in internet at all) to be able to be put at a general level with the United States. Hence, I presume, it can demonstrates its ability of having an independent article so. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

US intervention in Chile is more straightforward historically than in Venezuela (Pinochet, etc.). Just looking for US intervention in Venezuela is unfair, if you search Cuba or Russian intervention in Venezuela you would have as many results, Cuba-Venezuela meddling articles go back in time to early days of Chávez. Also Colombian paramilitary forces in Venezuela is also undeniable. Take a look at the current article. A US intervention article alone seems just a move to give protagonist to the US and avoid the more delicate politics. Also almost every US statement these days goes along with a Russian counterstatement and vice-versa. Russian-US discussions on the Venezuelan crisis are non separable right now. --MaoGo (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with MaoGo, intertwined and inseparable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The notability of a matter is determined by the sources. Considering the level of US intervention/presence the same as others, is itself a violation of NPOV. Moreover, I intend to create a separated article, and will utilize the other matters/points which were mentioned by other friends, as well. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ali Ahwazi: I strongly advice against it. I recommend to take into account the points discussed here and to read the talk page of Chile. Also remember WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ali Ahwazi: You do not have consensus to create a POV fork from this article, and doing so would be disruptive. Further, it would contain no information that is not contained here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Consensus? Was there consensus for making such an objected unilateral move? Likewise, I keep the right of creating an article I deem notable preserved for myself. Needless to mention that you may try AFD, if you think the title is not notable. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ali Ahwazi: you have not shown comprehension of any of the points we have raised before. Please, do not proceed without giving more reasoning, it can be considered WP:POVFORK. --MaoGo (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

If you recreate an article that was already AFD'd, that is disruptive editing. Gain consensus first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Consensus? Of course it can be an significant factor in every page/move... Meanwhile, adding to my explanations/arguments --regarding the title of "U.S. intervention in Venezuela": I assume it can also be helpful to give further examples about more similar existing articles. E.g. in regards to "involvement/support of countries in Iran-Iraq war", there are several separated articles by countries --instead of being (only) a general related article(s); and such examples presumably would support for "having sufficient condition(s)/quality to have an independent page." Such as:

• Soviet involvement in the Iran–Iraq War
• U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War
• French support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War
• Italian support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war
• Portugal and the Iran–Iraq War and so on. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

These would be useful of there was a title proposal, but the discussion is about such separate article should be created, and for the time being the main problem with these article is that they're about the Iran-Iraq war, while in Venezuela there even isn't an ongoing armed conflict. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Russian perspective

This article is from an investigative Russian newspaper Meduza:Why Russia is really sending military advisers and other specialists to Venezuela--MaoGo (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

News on Iran

Venezuela turns to Iran for a hand restarting its gas pumps (AP)--ReyHahn (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Updates

With Iranian planes that came in April, the Macuto raid and now Russian military, the article needs to be updated Russian troops to help Venezuela search for members of failed incursion: report.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

US senator admits to involvement in coup attempt

https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1290656459496263687?s=20 161.11.160.44 (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)