Misplaced Pages

Talk:Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis

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 SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) at 15:57, 17 November 2023 (→The Lancet: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:57, 17 November 2023 by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) (→The Lancet: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis 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: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconInternational relations Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLatin America
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Latin America 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.Latin AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Latin AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Latin AmericaLatin America
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPolitics
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
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconVenezuela Mid‑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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
On 29 June 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis to Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis. The result of the discussion was moved.
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis was copied or moved into List of individuals and entities sanctioned during the Venezuelan crisis with this edit on 2023-10-18. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Content moved without attribution and misinterpretation of size

Please see WP:CWW on the improper move of the list and the post at User talk:WMrapids re this being the third time at least that same has happened.

Further, with respect to size, removing a list does absolutely zero to the readable prose size, as lists are not calculated in readable prose.

WMrapids, PLEASE begin to use article talk pages to discuss your edits so as not to create unnecessary cleanup work for other editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The size (300k) was simply too large. There are multiple issues here; the old article size results with choking, Misplaced Pages is not a directory and verifiability does not not guarantee inclusion. The split is justified, especially since the inclusion of all entities and individuals on the project is questionable. After the split, many notable sanctions are still included in the history of sanctions in prose throughout the article. WMrapids (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
In addition to the incorrectly attributed move of the individual list, other content was blanked. There are better ways to trim this article; pls engage talk before reverting again, and gain consensus about the best way to proceed towards trimming the article (it is now just above 10,000 words of readable prose, so bringing the size down is not unmanageable, and it can be done without leaving an unintelligible sub-article). This is an odd statement ("inclusion of all entities and individuals on the project is questionable") since the article could not be a featured list (a sample of Misplaced Pages's best work) if it was not complete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
So you're going to ignore the choking issues that face readers and users? WMrapids (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not "ignoring" anything; you made a messy move, didn't clean up after yourself, didn't seek consensus, blanked content, etc. so the mess has been reverted. Collaboratively reducing the size is the way I roll, and you well know that, as you saw a model of how to proceed collaboratively right here. I do not intend to continue to do all the cleanup that results from non-collaborative, non-consensual editing. Clean up the messes you left, including this, and then discuss with others the best ways to reduce size here (which aren't necessarily the way you did it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Why would I need consensus for an initial edit? Must I ask you for permission for each edit on Venezuela-related topic? As I have already said, I made a mistake with my initial edits and have fixed them for the most part. WMrapids (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Of course you don't need anyone's permission to edit, but when editors make non-collaborative editing a habit and then leave the cleanup for others, they can expect to be reverted when patience is exhausted. Doing a correct content move takes a lot of work to get both ends right, you didn't do that, perhaps you didn't notice the hours it took to get the Silvercorp Agreement right, and asking others for help on talk is not a bad idea and gets the job done more quickly and with less agida. If you are willing to slow down, engage talk and edit collaboratively, I'll be happy to go back through this article and do some trimming; that is, since I wrote a lot of the content, I hopefully won't ruffle anyone's feathers by ditching some of it. (I already pulled some poorly sourced bits that were added during my break from Venezuelan topics.) But I am not interested in being reduced to secretary and mediator again on another topic. And I won't be home for two more days, and have exhausted my hotspot data limit, so patience. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: My main concern is the list; not that it exists but that it is very heavy on browsers for everyone (sure that can't be good on your tablet haha). If we could include the main, notable sanctions in the body and then move the rest of the listed information to list article, that seems reasonable. Again, no intention to "ruffle" anything, but it seemed necessary upon my encounter and I didn't want to bother anyone else with something that appeared clear at the time. Sorry that it's been a bother anyways... WMrapids (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I have moved the list-- this time, I hope, correctly ... fixing the lead over there, and the hatnotes over here, and with proper edit summaries. I will slowly pick through the text to trim the readable prose size. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
By the way, it's not at all hard on my browser or iPad, and the KB of the article, at 250, was not even remotely large compared to some really problematic articles, but done anyway. And I do hope you can understand that when other editors have put a lot of effort into developing a well-sourced article, with a complex table, seeing this done to it, rendering it uncited and without a lead, is not going to generate warm fuzzies. Just something to keep in mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
And another reason to discuss before moving is to get the name right; ships and planes are not organizations, individual vessels were sanctioned, and that's why the original content used the word entity; now List of people and organizations sanctioned during the Venezuelan crisis needs a move <sigh>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Apologies. Should be fixed. WMrapids (talk) 05:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
And for questions about similar lists, please see the consistent title use in List of people and organizations sanctioned in relation to human rights violations in Belarus and List of people and organizations sanctioned during the Russo-Ukrainian War.--WMrapids (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
All manner of garbage is to be found on Misplaced Pages; I suggest consulting WP:FL for better examples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Blue color

Can anyone tell me why Carvajal is in blue color over at List of people and entities sanctioned during the Venezuelan crisis? Best I can tell, it's undefined, and it breaches MOS anyway by using only color to convey ... something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems to have been introduced in this edit by Farolif . Probably a typo. Note that Alex Saab got blue too.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
It could also mean sanctioned people that have been arrested? Not sure. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:SIZE

Hi @SandyGeorgia:. Since you were the one that provided a format to the list of sanctioned people and you're experienced in watching out for articles sizes, I thought about notifying you about the recent concerns, but I see that discussion has already started. Although my Prosesize gadget says that there are currently 69 kB of readable prose size, but I wanted to ask you what you thought about a split to List of people and organizations sanctioned during the Venezuelan crisis (sorry if you have already said it!), and I see this has already been done as well. Kind regards, NoonIcarus (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, NoonIcarus. Short version (see #Content moved without attribution and misinterpretation of size): the split did not need to happen per WP:SIZE, and should have been discussed first, but neither do I see any harm resulting in going ahead with it. If others disagree, we should discuss whether to re-merge the content back here. Longer version: there has been long long long-standing discussion at the talk page of WP:SIZE about how to apply the split recommendations now that most people have much faster connections. I, for example, right now have a spotty connection, but had no problem loading the article. The modern concerns about WP:TOOBIG, as stated on that page, do not apply to WIki Markup size, rather only to readable prose. For reasons beyond my comprehension, many editors either don't know what readable prose is, or don't know how to use the tools to calculate it, but for our purposes here, it's important to note that lists and tables are not counted in readable prose size, and the split did nothing, zero, to the readable prose size here. The objections to readable prose longer than 10,000 words have to do with difficulty in maintaining the content, and reader attention span. The readable prose of this article is as of today only slightly above 10,000 words, and my plan was to continue trimming some older overquoting, which was needed anyway. Because of POV concerns, I suspect we tend to overquote throughout Venezuelan content, and with hindsight, I see a lot that can be removed. So I'm working my way through it, and expect to be able to bring the readable prose to a manageable size, and think that work was needed anyway; but the long story is we did not have a serious size reason for the split, and if there are serious objections to it, we should discuss. If others view it as a POV fork, that's a problem: note that in the Silvercorp Agreement split, which was a legitimate TOOBIG readable prose issue, I specifically raised those questions before proceeding, which was not done here. If done correctly (it initially wasn't), it doesn't trouble me, but I'm open to persuasion. If others have objections to the split, they should bring them forward, but the work needed on trimming readable prose is an entirely separate matter; bringing the table back will not change the WP:TOOBIG readable prose size. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
PS, another thing I could do -- but will only do if others are concerned -- is ping in some stalwarts of the featured lists process, as they are well versed in how to best build list pages. I am generally unimpressed with the overpinging/canvassing that is occurring throughout Venezuela content, so will only seek that feedback if others concur it may be helpful or needed. Slow and steady wins the race. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Many thanks for the explanation. One of my points precisely is that the readable prose still did not warrant a split, but you also give a good explanation that I was unaware of. Please let me know if you need any help in this regard. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
NoonIcarus in the trimming effort, I moved this to the sub-article as it is content not totally related to the sanctions, rather the broader agreement, and we have room for expansion there, while this article is TOOBIG. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: That's alright, thank you for the heads up. Would you like me to help with the trimming? --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Issues remain from improper split

See WP:PROPERSPLIT

As I was trying to read through to finish removing overquoting and to begin work on the messy Reactions section, I began to find problems that relate to the split.

  1. The WP:TOOBIG issue in readable prose size is already being reduced by removing overquoting, and will be reduced even further when that, and cleanup of the Reactions section, is completed.
  2. The citations were still out of sync between the List page and this Article page, and every time I had to fix one, it meant I had to fix it in two places. There are (at least) three problems with the citations:
    1. The U.S. Treasury pages are press releases.
    2. Most of the old U.S. Treasury pages changed URL and were dead links, and had to be replaced.
    3. Almost none of the citations here had archive-urls, so new pages had to be looked up.
    ALL of that had to be done on two pages; it's helpful to first have clean citations before creating a split, that wasn't necessary anyway, and resulted in a double maintenance load. But much more importantly:
  3. The new List article was subject to more Gratuitous tagging of primary sources, because we built the table using the direct references to the sanctions in most cases, which were primary sources, although the secondary sources exist here on the main page. By separating the List from the Article, we effectively ended up with a primary source list-- making it subject to deletion and tagging.
  4. And further, as we've known for years at the WP:FAC archives, what makes a page slow to load are the transclusions like checkY,  Done,  Not done etcetera, so by removing those tick marks from the table, we should not have load time problems here.

Since we don't have a problem with excess readable prose, and removing the tick marks should ease the load time problem WMrapids had, my suggestion is that the split should be undone, and we should contemplate whether to re-do it once we've finished cleaning everything up, and can see if it's still needed. WMrapids if can accept this approach, a {{prod}} tag at List of people and entities sanctioned during the Venezuelan crisis can make it go away so that we can decide down the road if it needs to be re-created, and we can do that slower, making sure everything is in order first. For now, it's just not expedient to have to fix things in two places at once, and I found the problems as I was trying to update which sanctions were removed ... updating in two places, with citations that don't match, is a burden not warranted by the absence of size problems here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, better than a prod (because of all the attribution mess) would be to just redirect the list back to here for now, which lets us decide in the longer run if the split is really needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

As of this 23 October version, the article is down to 8,500 words of readable prose, and that's without tackling the extremely bloated Reactions section yet. I'll stop for a bit to allow others to catch up, and begin to think about Reaction section proposals once others have weighed in. I do not believe this article warrants a split; the bloat has been and can be addressed through other means, with the Reactions section remaining. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Missing info: another example of why it's better to keep the list with the article

At the bottom of the Persons sanctioned list, beginning at 2019-09-27, Alexis Enrique Escalona Escalona Marrero, there is a series of people sanctioned on 27 September 2019 that don't have citations. A google search indicates they were sanctioned, but I can't tell by whom, or whether they are included in the article content, and what citations should be attached. Does anyone know how to clean this up? @NoonIcarus and ReyHahn: I wasn't paying attention then, but it would be good to clean it up in both the article and the table. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Found one piece: Voice of America. Treasury EU SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 Done, but found more (still to do). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Lancet editorial misrepresented

This edit summary is bordering on a personal attack, but more importantly, the content of the Lancet editorial is cherry-picked and misrepresented. Perhaps that is (only one) part of the very good reason the entire lot of edits was reverted (I saw other problems as well). I don't want to get into the middle of an edit war, but the gross misrepresentation of the Lancet's entire point needs correction to remove the considerable one-sided bias introduced. WMrapids, after you were reverted once, you should gain consensus before reinstating ... even more so in this case where the content added is so biased. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The Lancet editors (15 June 2019). "Venezuela: food and medicines used as weapons" (PDF). Lancet. 393 (10189): 2360. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31357-1. PMID 31204665. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Nothing misrepresented about what was said, especially since it is quoted. I ask again, must I always ask for permission for edits? This is bordering WP:OWN... WMrapids (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
That was answered two days ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Maybe I can help resolve the disagreement and be the one to add a third perspective on this issue. The source is good. Editorials are often disfavored, but this is an attributed editorial stance of a major RS. The Lancet is independently notable from an encyclopedic standpoint. There are various ways to express the stance of the article. The quotation is acceptable and doesn't need to be removed. The quotation picks up most of the major points. What's missing is that The Lancet called for the involvement of non-governmental entities to manage and distribute aid, and for the Venezuelan government to allow them to do so. That addition or a similarly phrased one ought to alleviate any concern about The Lancet's position being fairly represented. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
There is no doubt the Lancet should be represented among the various opinions in that section (although Nbauman's reasoning at #The Lancet about it being singled out at MEDRS isn't relevant to non-biomedical information and opinion), so while I don't argue the Lancet should not have due weight along with every other reliable opinion offered, they get no more or less weight than anyone else (who may be experts on the specific matter, which the Lancet is not -- it's not their area of expertise, it's their opinion, like all the rest, but some of the other opinions are more informed by being within their area of expertise). What is missed in the biased excerpt is that they are calling out Maduro for using food and medicine as a weapon and not allowing NGOs in (something that is well supported by a multitude or reliable sources, so not UNDUE), and encouraging him to do so, while also stating that the US is using sanctions for political purposes, which they claim violates human rights and also claim is affecting food and medicine (unsure if the Lancet is in a position to make this statement, and plenty disagree, but won't argue that point -- I'm OK with their attributed opinion). This edit managed to get none of the relevant points, while giving an unbalanced representation of the entire point of the Lancet editorial, by glossing over the Maduro issue and highlighting one quote of the sanction issue (and yes, cherry-picked quotes can still misrepresent sources by choice of what is included and what is omitted). Further, the source can be correctly represented without quoting, but more importantly, all of it can be worked more seamlessly into the thematic reorganization of that whole section that we've been talking about for days, that would also resolve the Guaido/Hausmann double standard. Discussing rather than edit warring is the way to go; we were doing that, when these edits introduced new problems while not solving the original problem. There are more problems than this one with the recent edits, and slow and steady wins the race. Thanks for the help, JArthur1984, but please give me a moment to catch up and summarize. That entire section needs to be better worked, and we were in the midst of discussing and working collaboratively on that when this edit war occurred. And my doorbell just rang, so give me an hour ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Edits of 20 to 21 October

  1. On 20 October – while there was ongoing collaborative talk page discussion about how to resolve the issues in this messy section and more – in this series of edits on 20 October, multiple (old and new) issues were introduced (blanking of cited content, a double standard on Hausmann v. Weisbrot, cherrypicking of source statements, and more).
  2. At 01:58, October 21, 2023 NoonIcarus reverted to the stable version.
  3. At 04:40, October 21, 2023 and onward, in this series of edits, the problems were reintroduced, without talk page discussion.

I plan to revert most with selective restorals of the good edits (which is VERY time consuming way to edit, and engaging talk for consensus building would be more expedient for all), for the following problems (at least), so that we can then discuss how to move forward from here rather than edit war. The problems in this series of edits are:

  1. 04:40 removes the cited word claimed. Misapplies the WP:LABEL guideline and removes a footnote about Weisbrot's support of chavismo, while leaving an essentially identical statement about Hausmann in the article (note b), and defending that on talk (it is unclear why Hausmann being a Guaido advisor is advocated to be included in the article, but Weisbrot's well documented support of chavismo is removed). Not only should it be possible to rewrite this whole section in a more general way, without he-said/she-said and overquoting, but however these two are handled (short of sources making the connection) should be parallel.
  2. 04:41 removes something labeled "opposition rhetoric" from the lead (see point 3), but leaves a whole ton of quotes cherrypicked according to (what criteria?); the whole mess can be better summarized if we re-work the lead after we fix the mess in the section it is based on. (There is also a faulty impression in the lead that the Trump administration began with industry sanctions, when in fact they first applied more limited individual sanctions, hoping those would work first).
  3. 04:42 how is it "not relevant" that the Maduro administration claimed it was being strangled by sanctions, yet was still selling oil to Cuba and giving money to allies? This is neither "opposition rhetoric" nor UNDUE (samples only, there are literally gobs of sources on this):
    04:56, restored, yet still removed from lead.
  4. 04:44 see point 1 re double standard on Weisbrot/Hausmann
  5. 04:46 appears to be a good edit that should be preserved.
  6. 04:47 see #Lancet editorial misrepresented
  7. 04:48 besides the edit summary problem, "civil society" is defined as organizations not associated with government"; what is the problem here, and why was the Barraez source moved to content that it doesn't source rather than a rewrite to source what it does say?
  8. 04:52 not problematic per se, but introduces more of the selective overquoting we seek to reduce and consolidate more generally.
  9. 04:58 why? Crystall ball? We don't know what is going to happen next year, we can change it next year if needed, and the way it is written now, we have redundancy in 2023.

The points are numbered for discussion; please do. I believe we all acknowledge there are issues to be corrected, but edit warring is not the fastest way to progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  1. It was reworded per MOS:CLAIM. Their political beliefs are irrelevant and it was an attempt to synthesize information to lead the reader. Period. Also, the comparison to Hausmann is a false equivalency, one economist is described as being politically sympathetic while another economist is literally part of the government.
  2. Yes, it was unnecessary rhetoric from an opposition official who simply said that "nothing wrong with these sanctions". I have no problem with rearranging the wording so that the scale of sanctions is interpreted correctly. There was already information from WP, so a more recent article from AJ was added.
  3. First, the sources weren’t great for such claims. Second, there’s no context on financial obligations, etc. that may have existed, only an attempt to place a "gotcha" into the article. As for the intro, it is undue.
  4. Again, false equivalency.
  5. Cool
  6. Looks like in the discussion above, we can add the call for NGO involvement. No problem.
  7. "Civil society" suggests a broad outrage amongst society and not just a scope of outrage amongst activists and NGOs, which is more accurate according to the sources.
  8. No problem with including the analysis from a notable Venezuelan economist (they are already mentioned as the last independent person to see Venezuela’s gold reserves).
  9. Not clear what you’re attempting to say? Removed the date and made it a more prominent section since it is notable that some sanctions are being lifted. Not much more to say about that edit.
WMrapids (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I would like to follow up on this, since I wanted to explain the reason I disputed the edits but have not had time:
  • A subsequent UN report in 2021 would state that sanctions had worsened Venezuela's economic crisis (): No, it did not. The report is not from the United Nations, but rather a special rapporteur, Alena Douhan, whose position is already covered in the Reactions section. A report from a rapporteur is not the same as the United Nations, which is a common mistake that has been discussed a lot in topics from Israel to Syria. We only need to remember Alfred de Zayas to see how unreliable and biased they can be.
  • Article did not say anything about "civil society" (): It did, it specifically mentions the position of non-governmental organizations.
  • Opposition politician opinion. Not relevant. (): David Smolansky is currently the Commissioner for Venezuelan Migrants and Refugees for the Organization of American States. If there's anyone that can speak about the refugee crisis and its reasons, it is him.
I could go on, but most problems essentially boil down to the same issues: WP:SYNTH and removal of relevant content. From what I see, the stable version has been restored, so I have removed the POV tag. Changes can continue to be implemented as at any rate the article needs updating. Cheers, --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
If we could all recognize the Reactions section, lead, and any other disputed areas need work (which includes reducing overquoting), and get that work done via proposals (eg #Lancet proposal, #Footnote proposal) it will be preferable to edit warring; once an edit has been reverted, pls discuss and gain consensus on talk. WMrapids, 1. The word claim was cited; 2 and 3. The sources in the article weren't great, but we know this is easily sourced information; I've provided just a small sampling. I don't believe it's UNDUE content, but do believe we should beef up the sourcing. 4. Disagree; Weisbrot's long-standing involvement with chavismo is on the par with Hausmann's role as an economic advisor. See proposal below; identify both or remove both. But still think if we write this section better and more generally, we can avoid having to single out anyone in terms of their possible bias. 5. NA. 6. See proposal below. 7. Per NoonIcarus response, but I reworded that anyway. 8. NA. 9. I'm saying that by removing the 2023 from the section heading and adding it to the body, we ended up with redundant sentences, and leaving it for now in the section heading will work, as we don't know what the future will bring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Continued at #Reactions section rewrite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Lancet proposal

Starting with JArthur1984's suggestion above, how about:

  • The Lancet journal editors noted in 2019 that Maduro had used food as a political weapon and resisted humanitarian aid, and that the U.S. had reacted with sanctions that they said resulted in "collateral" food and medicine shortages. They called for the involvement of non-governmental entities to provide distribution of food and medicine, and for the Venezuelan government to allow them to do so, and stated that the UN Human Rights Council considers economic sanctions a violation of human rights.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

This looks good. In second line, I suggest changing "they" to "the editors". I don't perceive the benefit to collateral in quotes however, as this is already couched in terms of what The Lancet was saying. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Both work for me; would appreciate more feedback before installing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Continued at #Reactions section rewrite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Footnote proposal

We have these footnotes; both Weisbrot and Hausmann. Remove both or keep both ?

  • I'm leaning towards remove both (as we rewrite the miserable Reactions section to consolidate information thematically and avoid overquoting, the issues in the text requiring attribution will hopefully subside anyway). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I think revisit after the substance of the section is re-written. Weisbrot footnote seems too much SYNTH and he is already described in body as left-leaning. The body of the text should specify Hausmann's role as a Guaidó appointee. Your suggestion of the more holistic re-write and then see where we stand on issues requiring attribution is sensible. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I hope to put up a rewrite proposal for the whole thing within a few days; for now, I am entertained dealing with my husband's iPad being stolen on our roadtrip. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Weisbrot information is SYNTH of descriptions while Hausmann is directly involved with Guaidó. WMrapids (talk) 06:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Hausmann was an advisor to Guaido; Weisbrot was an advisor for (advancing) chavismo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Advising for a film is different from advising a government directly. Another false equivalency... WMrapids (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Continued at #Reactions section rewrite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead proposal: missing later than 2019 reactions to effects

The lead now has no mention of later reports on the effects of the sanctions, but I suggest holding off on figuring out that wording 'til we have cleaned up the Reactions section. (That is, pls don't think I am ignoring that omission because I passed it over-- just believe it doesn't make sense to clean up a lead when a body is still evolving --- unless someone can suggest a brief, neutral sentence we might agree on regardless of the work needed in Reactions.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

A useful essay on overquoting

Reactions section rewrite

This is a trimmed and rewritten Reactions section; I self-reverted so we could discuss improvements here.

I re-organized to thematic paragraphs (see the inline comments), and even with the addition of The Lancet content, trimmed 500 words by combining like thoughts and reducing overquoting and redundancies (many of the sources are saying the same thing). This brings the entire article to 8,000 words of readable prose; well under WP:TOOBIG.

WRT the dueling economists, I removed both footnotes explaining their alleged biases. In the case of Weisbrot, the commentary from other experts speaks well enough for itself, so I did not see any need to identify any bias as a chavista supporter -- let the facts speak for themselves. In the case of Hausmann, he says nothing/zero that isn't common knowledge in the oil industry or in Venezuelan history, or has anything to do with Guaido tapping him (a very highly respected economist) as an advisor, so I likewise saw no reason to single him out.

If others find the addition helpful, pls feel free to revert it back in and improve as necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  1. You placed 2023 information ahead of 2019 information, misrepresenting the situation. For instance, the WP says in 2019 that the economic difficulties predated sanctions, yet AJ in 2023 says that the sanctions began to affect ordinary citizens. Seems to be leading the reader towards minimizing the effects of sanctions.
  2. Where is the information from Francisco Rodríguez (economist) discussing the effects of the sanctions? He said that sanctions greatly exasperated the already declining economic situation of Venezuelans. Surely we can remove the some of the quotes yet keep the overall material stated by him.
  3. Footnotes removed are OK.
  4. A chronological order should be used in the reactions section. As stated in multiple sources, the sanctions were gradually enhanced against Venezuela, so this should be explained throughout the section in order. Flip-flopping between various statements appears to be a clumsy way to lead the reader through various claims and dates.
WMrapids (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
The existing approach to Weisbrot/Hausmann is a problem. The body of the text couches Weisbrot in terms of political position as "left leaning," presumably so that the reader can consider how political stance might impact his analysis. And yet Hausmann is described in-line as "Harvard economist." To be a political appointee like Hausmann is a fact of much more significance to the reader's evaluation of how political stance might shape analysis. And unlike fuzzy labels like "left-leaning" which means different things from different global perspectives, being a political appointee at the time a source publishes the cited article is very, very, very concrete. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I think the last two paragraphs could still be considerably trimmed, as I did with the rest by consolidation, but didn't want to cut too deep at first. So I left most of what was there, but it's all UNDUE relative to the rest, and I'd prefer to see both the UN and the dueling economists reduced to half of what they are in that version. Re, WMrapids concerns, I'm not a fan of building articles via WP:PROSELINE, and certainly not with the oldest first; introducing the most current/recent info first seemed preferable. And Rodriquez's views were still included, along with everyone else's; they don't each warrant a shout out (as neither do Weisbrot/Hausmann ... one possibility is to move the whole Weisbrot theory to his own page, as it's getting much more attention here than it warrants). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Definitely have to disagree with you Sandy.
The whole motion of the article is an increased tightening of sanctions; that is much more natural than bouncing between timelines and arguments.
I agree with JArthur1984 that the "left leaning" label should be removed. We can keep it short and sweet; Rodriguez said X, Weisbrot said X while Hausman countered with X. We don't have to get into too many details and quotes.
As for the UN info, we also don't need all of the conjecture about bias, etc. Just place that the UN rapporteur said X and some NGOs responded with X. WMrapids (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I like your point about simple. In this instance, both Weisbrot and Hausmann are wikilinked and therefore we could leave it to the reader to evaluate them by following the links. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Saw this after I wrote, but got that part, Jarthur ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I saw the latest commentary after I worked up the 21:14, October 24, 2023 version, which I self-reverted. In that version, I removed *all* labels, which seems the easiest solution to that whole mess. I also trimmed a lot of the UN stuff. I tried to incorporate all the earlier comments. I think/hope the only place where we disagree is wrt chronology/proseline. I tried to clearly identify that chronology with this structure: first para, Maduro position; second para, Guaido position; third para, beginnings of crisis, and then leading in to ... As the humanitarian crisis deepened and expanded, the Trump administration levied more serious economic sanctions; some economists and non-governmental organizations opined that the 2019 sanctions worsened the economic crisis, ... There isn't really a timeline ... we have almost everyone saying in 2019 that crisis pre-dated sanctions, we have a 2023 statement by Al Jazeera re 2023 that I've given perhaps UNDUE prominence to highlight that issue, and I've grouped the medical/food/medicine stuff thematically. I hope this is getting closer; I'm much happier with the readable prose now at 7,900 words, and writing in a way that we are singling out very few specific individuals and their affiliations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Oops, intended to remove all labels, but missed one ... nutrition expert Susana Raffalli ... agree better to let the reader follow her link if they want to know what kind of expert she is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
If you all agree with the trimmed content, we can work out the flow separately. (I Hate PROSELINE, and prefer to group content thematically.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia Why is the list still included? Also, where is Rodriguez? The chronology looks better regrading Al Jazeera, at least. WMrapids (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
WMrapids, I explained a few days ago back up in the size section why the list was brought back. See #Issues remain from improper split; the split left a citataion mess, separated primary from secondary sources, and it wasn't needed based on either WP:TOOBIG (readable prose) or load time. The TOOBIG issues are resolved by cleaning up the overquoting and redundant prose, and the load time issues are removed by getting rid of the tick marks. (We discovered last decade at WP:FAC what a horrible effect tick marks have on load time.). We have an easier article to maintain by keeping it all together, secondary sources that augment the primary sources in the table are in the article content, and since there aren't load time or readable prose issues, we have a more complete article by keeping it all together. Rodriguez is in the named ref AlJaz2023 ... the original content was:
  • In 2023, Al Jazeera wrote that the sanctions had affected citizens; economist Francisco Rodríguez stated the economic complications existed prior to sanctions, which worsened the economic crisis.
which is now split. Many economists and sources say the same thing, so they are grouped. The first clause (affected citizens) is intact in the rewrite. The second clause (existed prior to sanctions) is in the section with inline hidden comment "Crisis pre-dated", grouped with all the sources who say the crisis pre-dated sanctions (but I see I added it twice there and need to remove one), and the third clause (worsened the crisis) is grouped with all the sources and economists who say that sanctions worsened the crisis, in the section with the inline hidden comment "Sanction increase" with the content "worsened the crisis". If you go in to edit mode on the rewrite version, and ctrl-f search on AlJaz2023, you'll see all the bits are there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
The list still doesn't fix the choking issues, which is detrimental to both editors and readers.
And thanks for the explanation for Rodriguez. We're making progress, but not quite there yet. WMrapids (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
What are the choking issues? The page is 250KB, even on the ridiculous connections I often have, I'm having no load time problems, and 250KB isn't a number I've ever seen anyone have problems with. What problem is happening on your end, and what kind of connection do you have? Is anyone else having a problem? If so, it could be the way colors are set up in the table. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

With this 26 October version, readable prose is now under 7,900 words; WP:TOOBIG issues are well resolved; all labels of different economists, experts, etc are removed; and like content is consolidated thematically. Since most sources are saying the same thing, highlighting of individuals is rarely needed or warranted, although I've retained the instances where attribution is unavoidably needed. Please review the discussion of this rewrite above, including the WP:SIZE matter, @JArthur1984, WMrapids, NoonIcarus, ReyHahn, and Bobfrombrockley:. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, noting pre-trim and pre-rewrite version, last edited by Bobfrombrockley at almost 11,000 words of readable prose. The overquoting that characterized this article is occurring throughout Venezuelan content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Overall size at 239KB after cleaning out unnecessary markup; that is just not a size that should be causing page load issues, although the excess transclusions fersure could have been an issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't experience any load issue JArthur1984 (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
There may be an opportunity to trim more adjectives from the reactions. Transparencia Venezuela's "kleptocratic, inefficient and authoritarian" seems not critical, nor does Bachelet's quoted adjectives devastating and the like seem to do too much for us. Clearly a topic where reasonable minds can differ but when I see a number of adjectives in a row it's usually signals to me that we could make our prose more encyclopedic. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Rewrite un-rewritten

After multiple editors engaged collaboratively above to summarize the contents and avoid singling out individual opinions, we now have two fairly obscure authors singled out in this series of edits:

  • In July 2019, Jean Galbraith wrote in the American Journal of International Law that despite promises from the United States that ordinary citizens were not to be targeted by sanctions, the economy of Venezuela was damaged by sanctions. In 2022, Marc Becker wrote that the sanctions were enacted in a regime change effort designed by the United States to affect the military and public so that they would become desperate and remove Maduro through a coup.

Galbraith repeats territory already covered and summarized when we trimmed the article and should be combined with those opining that sanctions increased problems; we have an entire paragraph on that, and she says nothing new. Becker is not Reaction; it's his opinion that goes elsewhere in the article. Rejigging this section so that it will again grow to a laundry list of the opinions of every Tom, Dick and Harry is undoing all that we did last week.

The edits also changed the thematic paragraphs established back to proseline/chronology.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Update needed

Could others please list updates needed, including sources (besides the obvious update to the 2023 partial release-- I'm still looking for the most comprehensive source on exactly what was released, just haven't had the time to finish that ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I have been the editor that placed the tags and one a fervent believer that updates are needed. The main reason why I added it is due to the list of sanctioned people, because this track has stopped some years ago. I think this should be easily verifiable with OFAC's Sanctions List Search Tool. If I have some time, I'll give a hand with this. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Thx, NoonIcarus, so I was backwards in thinking it was more industries that needed updating, and moved the tag to the wrong place ? See also my question at #Missing info: another example of why it's better to keep the list with the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Found this list to review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
To add - U.S.
  1. And I see that none of 2020 was added to the charts, so will also work on those (they are in the article, but not the chart). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    Added Parra & co. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. US Treas, 2021-01-19: Ellsworth, Brian; Parraga, Marianna (19 January 2021). "U.S. blacklists oil traders, tankers for undermining Venezuela sanctions". Reuters. Retrieved 28 October 2023. "Treasury Targets Venezuelan Oil Sector Sanctions Evasion Network" (Press release). U.S. Department of the Treasury. 19 March 2021. Retrieved 28 October 2023. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. US Treas, 2020-06-18 Psaledakis, Daphne; Parraga, Marianna (18 June 2020). "U.S. slaps sanctions on Mexican firms, individuals linked to Venezuelan oil trade". Reuters. Retrieved 28 October 2023. "Treasury Targets Sanctions Evasion Network Supporting Corrupt Venezuelan Actors" (Press release). U.S. Departmen of the Treasury. 18 June 2020. Retrieved 28 October 2023.
    Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. US Treas, 2020-03-12 Mohsin, Saleha; Millard, Peter (12 March 2020). "U.S. Sanctions Second Rosneft Subsidiary for Backing Maduro". Bloomberg. Retrieved 28 October 2023. "The United States Increases Pressure on Illegitimate Former Maduro Regime with Designation of TNK Trading International S.A." (Press release). U.S. Department of the Treasury. 12 March 2020. Retrieved 28 October 2023.
    Done,
  5. US Treas, 2019-11-26 "U.S. blacklists Cuban firm tied to Venezuela sanctions evasion". Reuters. 26 November 2019. Retrieved 28 October 2023. "Treasury Takes Further Action Regarding Designated Cubametales for Attempting to Circumvent Sanctions" (Press release). U.S. Department of the Treasury. 26 November 2019. Retrieved 28 October 2023.
    Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  6. US Treas, 2019-09-24 "U.S. sanctions target Venezuelan oil moving to Cuba". Reuters. 24 September 2019. Retrieved 28 October 2023. "Treasury Further Targets Entities and Vessels Moving Venezuelan Oil to Cuba" (Press release). U.S. Department of the Treasury. 24 September 2019. Retrieved 28 October 2023.
    Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  7. US Treas, 2019-07-03 "US Hits Cuba With Sanctions in New Move Against Venezuela's Maduro". Voice of America. 3 July 2019. Retrieved 28 October 2023. "Treasury Targets Cuban Support for the Illegitimate Venezuelan Regime" (Press release). U.S. Department of the Treasury. 3 July 2019. Retrieved 28 October 2023.
    Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Evasion
  1. Another evasion to add, Swiss: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Swiss
  1. Found more Swiss from 2020, to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Update, @JArthur1984, NoonIcarus, and ReyHahn: I am still working on the entities (Items 4 through 7 above, and the Swiss evasion), but I believe I am caught up on all individual sanctions. I reviewed all US Treasury press releases, found a list of all Canadian sanctions and cross-checked against it, found a list of EU/UK sanctions and cross-checked against it, and think I'm updated on Swiss. Did Colombia relax entry bans on anyone? Could you all glance at the individual sanctions to see if you notice anyone missing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Oopsie ... looked at es.wiki and found 2020-07-23 (Biden White House is not updating the sanctions page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
And EU 2021-2-22 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
And 2020-12-18 ; the White House list went to heck under Biden. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Sandy, thank you so much for all the recent improvements, I know it must have surely taken some time. I will take a look too later, but by then I believe everything should be good enough to removed the tag. Many thanks once again. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@JArthur1984, NoonIcarus, and ReyHahn: My apologies for the false alarm earlier; I do think I've gotten everything I can find now, and would appreciate review towards identifying anything missing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Colombia travel bans

Although Colombia during the Petro administration has made statements about relaxing sanctions, I don't have any insight on whether any concrete steps to do so have been taken. JArthur1984 (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Like JArthur1984, I don't recall a relaxation or withdrawal of sanctions, but Maduro did visit Bogotá in April 2023 for an international summit (). --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Oddly, Colombia seems to have prohibited entry for everyone but Maduro. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake. I took a look at the table, where Maduro was originally included, but looking at the reference that seems to be correct. Other officials might have visited as well, but I would have to check up on that too. Cheers, --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
NoonIcarus I believe it was I who misread the chart: see this 2019 source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Then this in July 2022. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
And this in September 2022; is there an official govt announcement, and did it apply to everyone? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you once again for your dilligence, Sandy. I am not aware of this announcement being made official, but I will let know if I find anything. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Because I can't find any official announcement, for now, I've only footnoted it in the table. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that, it's best to play it safe and avoid original research. Thank you kindly. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Sanctions and regime change efforts

In this edit of United States involvement in regime change in Latin America, multiple sources say that the sanctions by the Trump administration were enacted to push for regime change. How should we include this in the article? WMrapids (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Best I can tell, you already have, but this prose is an awkward way to introduce it, as it reads as forced, trying to work in the words regime change. During the administration of President Donald Trump, sanctions were increased towards Venezuela in regime change efforts to oust Maduro. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Would it be better to say "in regime change efforts against Maduro"? WMrapids (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
I suggest if that it's so awkward to work the words in, there may be an underlying reason to consider, and to think about whether it's even necessary. It is already abundantly clear throughout that the sanctions aim to remove the Maduro regime and restore democracy; regime change is not the word most sources use, and finding three that do does not necessarily reflect a preponderance of sources nor is it words we must use in this article (that article - regime change - is a separate matter). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
This is an argument on semantics. Removing the Maduro regime is regime change even if the argument of recognition arises. WMrapids (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
And your edits introduced tortured prose, while also singling out individual commentators, which is something we had previously eliminated. When sources are saying the same thing, we've combined them to one statement to avoid a series of he said-she said and overquoting. I've reduced that again. You introduced text twice now that has been twice corrected and removed by others; please gain consensus on talk for further edits to this content, which is torturing the prose in the interest of introducing wording used by select, but not most, sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

So ... and again ... rapid-fire editing has moved beyond what I can keep up with, especially while iPad editing from hotspot. I'll come back to this one when I'm on a real computer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Corrected per above notes; please gain consensus if you intend to continuing introducing content (also at #UNDUE content in the lead, which is not a summary of the sources or the article) that has been twice removed by others. The way to write Misplaced Pages articles is to first read all secondary reliable sources and summarize what they say-- not to first decide what we want to say and then google until we find a source that agrees. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for making baseless assumptions. Maybe you could be correct next time and notice that this information is something that was found after reviewing multiple secondary sources too? Omitting what you don't agree with ("Oh, well I read all of the sources and you're wrong") is inappropriate. Again, there are numerous sources saying that the US specifically made regime change efforts through the sanctions, including generally reliable sources.
So besides your own personal opinion on "what the sources say", why should it not be included? WMrapids (talk) 03:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I merged the new sources with like sources, removed repetition, eliminated unnecessary attribution of opinions shared by many sources, reduced some overquoting in citations, moved some obviously-not-lead material out of the lead, and corrected some prose that was tortured by its attempt to introduce the words regime change. The diffs and discussion are above; what is the content you claim I omitted ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
The part where I wrote "the US specifically made regime change efforts through the sanctions". Any reason why this is continually removed? WMrapids (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the diff of my changes (I already posted it above). Your push to incorporate the specific words regime change into the article left tortured prose; I left your link to regime change, with the words efforts to remove Maduro, as that a) preserves your desire to work in a link to regime change, while b) using the term most commonly used by sources (which is not regime change), and c) corrects the tortured prose from the awkwardness of the attempt to force the words regime change into an article which is obviously removing Maduro & Co from power. Most sources don't use the words regime change; you went out and found some that did. That's fine, but that doesn't mean we need to end up with tortured prose just so we can highlight one Wikilink, nor should we be framing the whole construct in the way a couple of sources do, when most sources don't use that specific term at all. I preserved the link (not because I think we must, but as a courtesy), and corrected the prose to reflect the preponderance of sources. If you want to highlith the words regime change more prominently, you know how to do that; convince everyone here that's what the preponderance of sources do (not just a few). Separately from that, your whole series of edits from two days ago had introduced tortured prose, repetitive content that undid the rewrite we worked on collaboratively here, and added UNDUE content into the lead which didn't summarize the content at all. If you edit like that, you should not be surprised to find other editors unable to tease out any good from the mostly bad, and simply removing the whole thing and asking you to gain consensus for your edits. That I'm willing to do the extra work to merge in the good doesn't mean most editors will, after a string of edits that aren't an improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Re "baseless assumptions", double messages are confusing. You were previously opposed to the word regime; now you want it used in this case, because a few sources do, when most don't? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
The word "regime" initially meant a government in general, yet it has negative connotations today. However, "regime change" still harkens back to the original meaning (a forced or coerced change in government) and is not related to the more recent use of the word "regime". WMrapids (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

UNDUE content in the lead, which is not a summary of the sources or the article

This is not a summary of the contents of the article, or the preponderance of sources, and I have removed it; please work towards a consensual version of what the sources say about the effects of sanctions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Can we agree to past wording that while the economic crisis preceded sanctions that the sanctions worsened the situation? There are multiple sources saying that sanctions worsened Venezuela's economic situation. WMrapids (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
There are multiple sources saying sanctions worsened the situation; there are multiple sources saying they did not. Oil shipments and corruption continued unabated, and those affect the economy and the humanitarian crisis. We can't just ignore the sources that millions were made by corrupt officials by not delivering food to those who needed it, for example, or that it was Maduro's refusal to accept aid that harmed the people. I suggest rather than shoving something in to the lead, that we work through a series of proposals as we've done elsewhere on this page to gain consensus from all that we have accurately reflected all sources-- not three obscure newly found ones. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Ok. The information on effects from the introduction has been removed until we have a consensus on what to include from sources and what may not be undue. WMrapids (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
That's fine; I had already mentioned that we needed to revisit the lead, once the body was updated, at #Lead proposal: missing later than 2019 reactions to effects. But the rewrite of the rewrite of the Reactions section now needs to be ironed out-- it's going backwards and growing the article again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: Didn't see that. Thanks for sharing the link. WMrapids (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The Lancet

I am copying this discussion from the archive, because I just saw the question for me in my messages:

Why is the discussion in The Lancet not included in the entry? The Lancet is one of the WP:RS specifically cited in WP:MEDRS. Nbauman (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Nbauman: Is this the Lancet article you are mentioning that I placed in this edit? WMrapids (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
The content in the Lancet editorial is not biomedical, so MEDRS isn't relevant here. The Lancet editors are going outside their normal medical realm to criticize the Maduro regime for using food and medicine as a weapon; they are certainly entitled to do that, but MEDRS doesn't apply to this content as the information is sociopolitical, not biomedical. Nonetheless, see #Lancet editorial misrepresented; the edit misrepresents the source and whitewashes what the editors said about Maduro. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
PS: "not to first decide what we want to say and then google until we find a source that agrees."
Strongly agree. Nbauman (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

First, I want to reply to @SandyGeorgia's comment that MEDRS doesn't apply, and that "The Lancet editors are going outside their normal medical realm". This is a common misconception, which was extensively addressed when the National Rifle Association told doctors to "stick to their wheelhouse". Doctors who treated automobile injuries realized that the underlying problem was automotive design, politics and legislation (See Unsafe at Any Speed). I believe (and most medical journals believe) that anything that requires medical expertise, such as mass starvation or nuclear war, is within the normal medical realm, and the effects of sanctions falls under the medical specialty of public health. The Lancet in particular makes a point of reporting on sociopolitical matters. See The Lancet generally and "Political controversies" specifically. The editorials are peer-reviewed, they regularly publish opposing opinions in letters and editorials, they retract mistakes, they were listed as a core medical journal in the Brandon-Hill list, and so it's more reliable than most of the other sources used in the entry. I used to read The Lancet every week for years, and use it as a source for my own work. (And to anticipate the common criticisms, The Lancet, like most medical journals, doesn't claim to be publishing "the truth"; they merely claim to do the best job they can of applying standard methods of fact-checking and scientific publishing to each manuscript.)

Second, as for #Lancet editorial misrepresented, I think it summarizes the editorial reasonably well, but I don't think anyone could summarize a 350-word article in a 50-word snippit. If I were writing it, I would quote the nut paragraph from The Lancet. I think a coherent essay is more useful than a paragraph of snippits (although the snippits are a useful bibliography). But I'm not writing it.

(I do think it should be rewritten in compliance with WP:SAID, however.)

Third, as for the specific Lancet article I'm referring to, I was actually referring to the coverage in general. Search PubMed for ("lancet") AND ("venezuela") (try https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%28%22lancet%22%5BJournal%5D%29+AND+%28%22venezuela%22%5BTitle%5D%29&sort=pubdate) for about 2 dozen articles, most of which are relevant to the sanctions. Note that they have a wide range of viewpoints, including something for everyone to disagree with. You can also search for ("bmj") AND (venezuela). I haven't tried NEJM or JAMA. Nbauman (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nbauman: Really want to thank you for revisiting this controversial discussion to provide thorough feedback. Regarding your third note, many of those articles are tagged as "Comment" or "Correspondence", so they may be more opinion-based. Are there any articles in particular that stand out to you? WMrapids (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Nbauman is wrong that the Lancet Editorial is peer reviewed. The Lancet say "Editorials are the voice of each Lancet journal, raising awareness on clinical and global health topics and health-related matters. These are written in-house by the journal’s editorial team and are signed by the journal (eg, The Lancet weekly signs “The Lancet”). Editorials are not externally peer reviewed." The scope of MEDRS is well described at the explanatory essay Misplaced Pages:Biomedical information. The text current citing The Lancet editorial does not contain biomedical information: "food and medicine shortages" are something subject to general reporting standards.
Where the rest of the section touches biomedical information is on population statistics such as "36% of Venezuelan children had stunted growth prior to sanctions" and "a 31% rise in deaths between 2017 and 2018 was due to the 2017 sanctions, and that 40,000 people in Venezuela may have died as a result". However the "prior to sanctions", "due to the 2017 sanctions" and "as a result " are well outside of MEDRS scope (for example, sanctions sometimes have little effect if the country is self-sufficient or has other allies who supply instead, both of which are political or circumstantial, not biomedical or healthcare). The population data here isn't your typical sort of WHO annual epidemiological report. I'd expect the stunted growth figure to be sourced to a government agency or respected NGO for example. The deaths are just government statistics, not biomedical. Attributing these things to sanctions is a political judgement.
I wouldn't regard The Lancet editorial much differently to an editorial in a high quality newspaper, though I would expect them to be more knowledgeable and reliable on health topics than a newspaper. It may be valid for the explicitly attributed opinion of a learned medical journal, but not for stating facts in wikivoice. -- Colin° 10:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Considering this, which I was unaware of, I think it would be good to consider if The Lancet statement has due weight in the article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Colin are you comfortable with inclusion of Weisbrot's content on deaths ? For background, Mark Weisbrot is an economist (and an advocate for chavismo). I have not objected to its inclusion because a) it got wide coverage, and b) the analysis was well refuted. But it would be good to have an external opinion on whether that content is given too much weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Assessing the weight is a bit outside of my zone as I'm not familiar with the topic or its sources. But if you've got a good handful of commentators examining the claims and refuting them, then that does lend weight to the fact that the original claim was widely covered and so may warrant mention. Some thoughts are that "by Mark Weisbrot and Jeffrey Sachs" raises a question "why should I care about two random people". Would it be appropriate to say the report was "by the Center for Economic and Policy Research" and do we need to name both authors? We could mention/link Weisbrot when we attribute their quote from the Independent newspaper. Also, the text says it was "described as invalid and disputed by other economists and accounts". Were there any other economists or accounts that support it? If so, then maybe the way we describe this might need modifying as it currently suggests universal criticism. -- Colin° 11:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
I personally haven't found other experts or economists supporting this claim, even though I have looked for them. The sources that repeat this claim always cite back the CEPR and both authors. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm unaware of anyone supporting Weisbrot's theory (which was well debunked). In a general rewrite of that section, I attempted to remove most mention of individuals and organize the content thematically, but IIRC, I did not even attempt to remove Weisbrot, as that would likely lead to editwarring as seen in other Venezuelan articles. Attempting to restore due weight on pro-chavismo points of view are rarely productive, and Weisbrot is preferenced by some editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Nbauman you've had alternate views on interpretation of MEDRS since the earliest days of its formation (see Archive 1, Archive 2, and Archive 3 where you argued for inclusion of lay sources, popular press, and tabloids as sources for biomedical content-- consensus was reached, the page was accepted as a guideline, and we have WP:MEDPOP today). My view is that we have accurately reflected various opinions on sociopolitical and economic matters in this version. If you want to argue that this content is biomedical, then including opinions is going to be tougher; it's hard to have it both ways here. And if there's anything in that section that may not meet MEDRS, that would be Weisbrot's (non-medical-expertise) claims about deaths, so if we're going to invoke MEDRS here, we'd best look at whether the Weisbrot content belongs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request at Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Biomedical information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis Add topic