Talk:Guyana–Venezuela crisis (2023–present)

Sorry, I meant to remove Brazil

Hello, I reverted my own edit. Please, add only referenced support. CoryGlee (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of the claimed territory map

There seems to be a disagreement between editors on whether or not File:Flag map of Venezuela (+ Guayana Esequiba).svg should be included in the article. I am neutral on the topic, but to prevent edit wars, I wanted to start the discussion. I am also pinging the two editors in a disagreement right now for this discussion (@Janitoalevic: & @BoomGoesTheTrinitrotoluene:), but of course, any editor is free to discuss about the inclusion of the map. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Title and usage of "Guayana Esequiba"

The usage of the Spanish-language Venezuelan name for the region instead of "Essequibo", which is far more common in English sources, seems incorrect for English-language Wikipedia and casts doubts on the neutrality of the article. The talk page for the region of Essequibo/Guayana Esequiba also had this discussion and the general feeling was that "Essequibo" was more appropriate. Troglodyte42 (talk) 11:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion at Guayana Esequiba

An editor has requested that Guayana Esequiba be moved to Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion.--WMrapids (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit Conflict

So can anyone reference a garbage source like this one: Helicóptero militar de Guyana estuvo varios minutos desaparecido mientras sobrevolaba el Esequibo - El Publico TV. A few sentences long with no references where they got the info and that completely contradicts NEWER and updated articles such as this one: Search still on for missing GDF helicopter; Army sees no Venezuelan involvement – News Room Guyana, which have stated the search has been called off for the night of 6-7 December, will resume in the morning Guyana time, and that no helicopter has been found, referencing the official military spokesperson. Meanwhile El Publico, a Caracas-based news station, has said the helicopter was found after a few minutes... All news sources are NOT equal, especially in contradictions such as this. You pick one. And the higher quality, more reliable one is from the Guyana news station. User6619018899273 (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Just a thought, this is probably going to become an issue if this situation grows larger. sources aren't going to be easy to come by. Manumaker08 (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@User6619018899273: Hi. Meant to reply to this earlier, but I wanted to say you're absolutely right, I fixed this once I realized. Many thanks for the notice. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Venezuelan opposition

The inclusion that Venezuela's claim to Essequibo unifies chavistas and the Venezuelan opposition "like no other issue." is either contradictory or unrelated. If we're talking about the referendum and current crisis, multiple opposition leaders have spoken out against the referendum, which is the first reason why arrest warrants were issued against them. If we refer to the historical claim overall, it would be much better to include this in the main article of the dispute, along with a full picture of the views of the Venezuelan society, and not only its political opposition. NoonIcarus (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

It was reported by BBC within the context of the crisis, so it is appropriate for inclusion. WMrapids (talk) 08:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

I think the infobox should be a military conflict infobox. This is involving more and more military units. We should change to a military infobox like the 2023 Nigerien crisis. It is clear that this in no way is a civil conflict. LuxembourgLover (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. We should be clear that at this moment this remains a crisis, but there is definitely military involvement and we should avoid original research regarding diplomatic support. Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

On that note, Brazil so far has only expressed willingness to mediate talks between the two parties and deny passage of Venezuelan troops through Roraima. As such, I think Brazil should not be included as a party supporting Guyana in the infobox until there's more solid evidence. - Jesterr35 (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

ITN Errors

• This discussion was started at WP:ERRORS about the headline in In The News on the main page but it keeps being blanked there, so this seems a better place to keep it together. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

---

• "Amidst a diplomatic crisis with Guyana, a Venezuelan referendum supports their government's claim to the disputed Guayana Esequiba region."

This blurb has several issues and the poster already stated that "further tweaks may be needed."

The problems include

1. The reported results and turnout are widely disbelieved by international analysts and media.[1], [2] On one hand, the government is claiming a massive turnout and success. And, on the other hand, they are now arresting members of the opposition for treason, claiming that they sabotaged the referendum.[3] As the result is not credible and verified, we should not be presenting Venezuela's propaganda uncritically in Wikipedia's voice.
2. As a comparatively minor point, when the blurb says "their government", it's not clear which country it's talking about.

Andrew🐉(talk) 21:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

- Not to mention that the implication that a referendum in one country in any way legitimately supports the forced annexation of a territory of another nation seems like it is backing an agenda pushed by Venezuela. A more neutral phrasing would be something along the lines of…

• “Amidst a diplomatic crisis with Guyana, Venezuela holds a referendum to advance their claim to the disputed Guayana Esequiba region." RPH (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

•  Done I agree that wording is more neutral than what we have on the main page. I've thus implemented it. Schwede66 03:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  "Venezuela" and "holds" are singular, so "their" should be "its". Bazza (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

   Fixed – Schwede66 00:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

---

• Amidst a diplomatic crisis with Guyana, Venezuela holds a referendum to advance their claim to the disputed Guayana Esequiba region.

  And? What was the result? This hook doesn't seem to be saying anything, just that a referendum occurred.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  It was neutered down due to NPOV concerns before.[4] Is there a suggested alternative? —Bagumba (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• I have restored the earlier discussion for clarity and context. The main results of this event seem to be that the Venezualan dictatorship is now arresting its opposition while Brazil, Guyana and the US are mobilising their militaries. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  That's very concerning and it sounds like a bad situation developing all around, but the question for us is how we convey all of that in a hook that makes sense while still maintaining NPOV of course. The current hook doesn't really say anything at all, just that a referendum took place. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  Take a look at this fresh DW report – the referendum isn't even mentioned. The issue is essentially a territorial struggle over oil and mineral resources and what matters is the diplomatic and military line-up. The crisis article is therefore the main topic which we should focus on and there's the even bigger crisis too. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  FWIW, print DW story. -- Sca (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  The latest news seems to be this Guardian report from Guyana which indicates that the inhabitants of the region are not interested in joining Venezuela. There's also talk of a US flyover as a show of strength but I can't find exact details confirming that this has actually happened yet. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Andrew Davidson: it sounds like you're angling for a major change of blurb, or perhaps a listing in Ongoing instead... if that's the case, you'll want to propose it at WP:ITN/C. Such major changes would be beyond the scope of WP:ERRORS. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  I've been following the news and updating the leads of the linked articles to summarise the state of the crisis. The latest news is now that the presidents of Guyana and Venezuela are going to meet to talk it through. Watch this space... Andrew🐉(talk) 20:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

1 November start date

The infobox states that the crisis started on 1 November; however, I can't see any citations for this nor any mention of the date in the body of the article. Can anyone clarify where this date came from? — Czello ^(music) 20:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Czello: This is a good question. The questions for the referendum were announced on 23 October, had been planned before that date and declarations already suggested a crisis before 1 November. I have mentioned before that we should be careful to distinguish this from a diplomatic crisis, since bilateral relations remain and diplomatic officials have not been recalled, but tensions clearly started at the very least by late October. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 17 December 2023

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. This discussion had a lot of different strands, but I believe they converge to a narrow consensus for this proposal. First, I see a definite consensus to move away from the current title of "2023 Guayana Esequiba crisis". Users raised plausible concerns about the neutrality of the term "Guayana Esequiba" and showed compellingly that that term is not widely used in English-language sources. The question thus became: is it better to use the term "Essequibo", or just to use "Guyana–Venezuela"? There were a handful of arguments made to determine the result of that question, including the following:

• What is the WP:COMMONNAME? From the discussion, I see general agreement that "Essequibo" is the COMMONNAME of the region under dispute, but there doesn't seem to be a clear single COMMONNAME for the crisis itself. To that end, while I think the COMMONNAME argument slightly favors "2023 Essequibo crisis", it primarily just makes the general case for using a descriptive title.
• WP:CONSISTENT. The article on the underlying territorial dispute is titled Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute, so the CONSISTENT case is fairly straightforward here.
• WP:NPOVTITLE. While I see a definite consensus that using "Guayana Esequiba" would be non-neutral, there was much less discussion (though still a nonzero amount) about the neutrality of Essequibo. Some users raised the opinion that "Guyana–Venezuela" was more neutral than "Essequibo", which leads this argument to lean slightly in favor of "2023 Guyana–Venezuela crisis". That said, this opinion does not seem to be very strongly held; the comment that most directly discussed the comparative neutrality of G–V versus Essequibo also acknowledged support for either option.

Given this set of arguments, I believe the strength of argument narrowly favors the originally proposed title, "2023 Guyana–Venezuela crisis". It's not an overwhelming consensus by any means, but given the WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE status of the discussion, I believe that is the title that most closely reflects the will of the participants and the relevant policies. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

---

2023 Guayana Esequiba crisis → 2023 Guyana–Venezuela crisis – Per the decision of Talk:Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute#Requested move 4 December 2023, "2023 Guyana–Venezuela crisis" is the preferred neutral title that abides to multiple criteria listed in WP:TITLE; it is a non-judgmental descriptive title, it is precise and concise by briefly explaining the topic. As determined in the previous move decision, "Guayana Esequiba" is a POV term used for Venezuelan claims and is not the common name. WMrapids (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: Move attempt to proposed title occurred, though it was reverted by a user who opposed the previous move.--WMrapids (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PRECISE. Venezuela has pledged to respond to activities in disputed waters, and it has already seized a vessel in 2013 and intercepted another one in 2018. On the other hand, Maduro specifically organized a referendum about the Guayana Esequiba this year and started plans to annex the region.

The current title specifies that the current crisis is about the disputed territory and distinguishes it from all the other tensions that Venezuela has had with Guyana this and previous years. --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• • Be that as it may, the English-language name of the territory is "Essequibo" not "[Guayana] Essequiba". Even the English-language edition of Spain's most left-leaning mainstream newspaper calls it "Essequibo". [5] There is no reason to use the Spanish-language name except in quotations of the Venezuelan POV. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The common name for this in English seems to be the Essequibo dispute. The 2023 bit isn't going to last as it's nearly 2024 and the dispute has spanned many years. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Andrew Davidson: Just want to clarify with you that this article is about the 2023 events and not the centuries-old dispute, the Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute. Per WP:NCWWW, we list "when the incident happened, where the incident happened and what happened" in the title. So in this case, when this happened was in 2023 (we can add in the 2024 when the time comes), where it is happening is between Guyana and Venezuela and what is happening is a dispute.

  The use of "Guyana–Venezuela" in the title instead of "Essequibo" is consistent with the Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute article title. The reason we are not including "dispute" in the title is that these events were more than an argument since there was an increased level of danger that amounted to a "crisis"; troops were deployed, sabers were rattled and soldiers died as a result. WMrapids (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• None of that addresses the WP:COMMONNAME basis for my position and so my !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Andrew Davidson: Would you prefer "2023(–24) Essequibo crisis" as recommended by DankJae? WMrapids (talk) 05:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONSISTENT, WP:COMMONNAME, and per nom, the area is not regularly referred to by the Venezuelan name per the other move and below, and a WP:NPOV name would be preferred. This article is specifically on the 2023 developments about and following the referendum therefore previous altercations are not automatically relevant nor the main topic. I see no evidence that the current name is common, considering "Guayana Esequiba" itself has fewer results (1,9 mil and 41,800 news) than Esequibo (21,2 mil and 2,79 million news) and Essequibo (15,2 million and 2,97 million news) Would be fine with changing it to those more common names such as "2023 Essequibo [something]", as I prefer any over the current uncommon and Venezuelan name, but prefer the proposed as it is NPOV. DankJae 16:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  Ngrams shows a long established preference for Essequibo clearly preferred over "Guayana Esequiba" or "Esequibo", so while this is general use (for river, region, dispute etc) to 2019 rather than specific to recent developments, I do not observe any recent change in English to the Venezuelan name over Essequibo, so this article should also be considered for 2023 Essequibo crisis ("crisis" as it is mainly about the recent diplomatic crisis and in the existing title) per above and below, and if there is no preference for a NPOVTITLE instead. What is clear the current title holds little justification, as using an uncommon name.

  Would still be fine with the one proposed as well. But if an alternative is needed "crisis" probably should be maintained, while Essequibo is the general common name. Ofc, if it expands into 2024, adding that year can easily be accommodated, when needed. DankJae 03:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I'll note that the WP:POVTITLE arguments in the other discussion were weak, something that even the closer themselves concede. It was proven that plenty of other sources use the term as well, including Guyana. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  Saying "I don't think the claims of alleged neutrality are so overwhelmingly important as to decide the RM on the spot" is not the equivalent of saying that the POV title concerns are "weak". Maybe the user can explain this, but you seem to have a flawed interpretation. WMrapids (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment As discussed on the main dispute talkpage and mentioned in Andrew and DankJae's comments above, the common style in English news to refer to the disputed region is Essequibo. That suggests the current title does not match WP:AT, so I would support a move away. Whether the title should follow some variation along the current one, eg. "2023 Essequibo crisis/dispute", or something like the proposed "2023 Guyana–Venezuela crisis", seems to be a question of stylistic preference rather than policy, so neutral on that. CMD (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: since this hinges on an earlier move request which is still currently under review. – robertsky (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• Move this is not only a partisan title taking the name used by the party wishing to annex territory (imagine if we had a page on the "Judea and Samaria crisis") but it's not the name used in the English language. BBC, English edition of El País (Spanish newspaper), Al Jazeera, Guardian. I'm honestly astonished that anyone could vote in support of a name not used in the English language by sources of any nationality or viewpoint, except, presumably Telesur or other pro-Maduro mouthpieces. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - Article titles and names about respective historical crises are composed of a single country/region name - Congo Crisis, Bosnian Crisis, Bulgarian Crisis etc. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Including recent ones, such as the Crimea Crisis, and so on. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Please see: Belizean–Guatemalan territorial dispute, Chilean–Peruvian territorial dispute, Croatia–Slovenia border disputes, Croatia–Serbia border dispute and Cambodian–Thai border dispute. The title "2023 Guyana–Venezuela crisis" would be appropriate and consistent with similar dispute articles. WMrapids (talk) 04:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@WMrapids Please read what I wrote: "Article titles and names about respective historical crises are composed of a single country/region name - Congo Crisis, Bosnian Crisis, Bulgarian Crisis etc." You're listing not crises, but disputes: Belizean–Guatemalan territorial dispute, Chilean–Peruvian territorial dispute, Croatia–Slovenia border disputes, Croatia–Serbia border dispute and Cambodian–Thai border dispute. Not sure you even read my said comment. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no such mechanism by which we name articles based on the wording used in the title, be it "crisis", "dispute", "war", "conflict", etc.. For example we have Anglo-Portuguese Crisis and Dutch–Venezuelan crisis of 1908. Dazzling4 (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dazzling4 Dispute != crisis. My point remains. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support: The name "Guayana Esequiba crisis" should only take priority over the generic "2023 Guyana–Venezuela crisis" if it can be shown that English language media specifically and more frequently uses the former. However this doesn't seem to be the case so we should default to the more neutral name. Dazzling4 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Tony1 There is no styleguide.

All you are doing is making pointless reverts that only make the article harder to sightread. Lukt64 (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to contradict: there is a style guide. It's very obvious you've never read it. Have you fixed the dash? Tony (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

1. Its not a style guide, it is a Manual of Style

2. What dash? Lukt64 (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Um ... look at the diff. You need to get dashes right. There's a button under every edit box if you don't have one on your keyboard. Tony (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Why dont you fix the dashes yourself instead of vandalizing the non-references part of the page. Lukt64 (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

It's more urgent that you learn how to use an en dash. If you don't fix it I'll assume you're unfit to edit, and revert. Tony (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I know how to use an en dash. I would have noticed if you simply specified in the edit that they were there. I was more focused on the fact you removed all country links. Lukt64 (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

If I removed a first-occurrence link to Guyana or Venezuela, I apologise. But no one is going to follow links to the US, the UK, etc. See WP:OVERLINK. I was trying to make the article look more professional and easier to read without a patchy sea of blue. For nearly 15 years en.WP has had a "minimise links" guideline, to maximise the utility of the linking system. Tell me if you want to know more. Now, if you do know how to use the en dash, can you locate in the diff the hyphen with which you replaced the en dash? PS "you" -> "you'd". Tony (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

This crisis has passed

Venezuela and Guyana signed the Argyle agreement and tensions have now subsided. They might reignite but it seems unlikely. FOARP (talk) 08:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I was surprised to see it moved to "–present". Would have to see if sources would consider a reignition the same crisis, or a separate continuation of this decades-long dispute. CMD (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

We can start discussing a potential end date for the crisis. The agreement signed between both governments could be a starting point, and we can see if sources have reported on decreased tensions. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, although i have a gut feeling that the very picosecond we say that the crisis ends, it will heat up. Manumaker08 (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, so it's now the end of the year and this crisis definitely still isn't going. FOARP (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Annexation in theory only?

It seems Venezuela now says this disputed part of Guyana really is part of V. - can this be correct? Does this mean war?--Ralfdetlef (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)