Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:22, 4 June 2019

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Crisis in Venezuela article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Venezuela B‑class Top‑importance

This 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contents of the Venezuelan economic crisis of 2016 page were merged into Crisis in Venezuela on 2017. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Health: Human Rights Watch report released

• https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/apr/05/un-urged-to-declare-full-scale-crisis-in-venezuela-as-health-system-collapses
• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/venezuela-diseases-health-system-measles-collapse-maduro-a8854586.html
• https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/04/05/709969632/researchers-are-surprised-by-the-magnitude-of-venezuelas-health-crisis
• https://apnews.com/2fb364582ac74a15ba7872dffa83dee7
• https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-health-un/u-n-urged-to-scale-up-aid-as-venezuela-crisis-deepens-idUSKCN1RG2G4
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/venezuelas-health-system-in-utter-collapse-as-infectious-diseases-spread-report-says/2019/04/03/fd39a152-563e-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.714d74e88889
• https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-un-urged-to-scale-up-venezuela-response-as-countrys-health-care/
• https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/04/04/venezuela-un-should-lead-full-scale-emergency-response

I am planning to work on this, but the article is already over 7,000 words of readable prose, and the amount of information that needs to be added and updated is daunting. Trimming of outdated info will be needed to keep the article to a readable size. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

It was my intent to begin adding this content, but this article is such a wreck, that it needs basic repair before major new content. Slow going, did some repair today, much more to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

COPYVIO

BoogaLouie, this is WP:COPYVIO. Please archive your talk page so people can communicate with you, and please review WP:PARAPHRASE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

So now, all of these edits need to be checked, as if there wasn't already a big enough mess in this article. Who wants to help? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

New Yorker website is down; this edit needs to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Checked; straight cut-and-paste. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

This edit is plagiarism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I did not respond in time. Seems you or someone else have rewritten or replaced the offending section. --BoogaLouie (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Better infobox image

It's time to update it, right? There should be images of people firing from freaking helicopters and other badass material. --Bageense 14:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

We only have what we have in terms of images; wanna go take some pictures? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Either that or finding material with a creative commons license. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent CEPR report

This edit was deleted with the claim that it is undue. Given this report was cited in a piece by The Independent, I believe that makes it DUE material. Democracy Now! also reported the findings. Not only that, but the report was co-authored by the economist Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University, hardly an extremist or an unreliable source on these matters. I believe the materials are relevant and should be inserted with the Independent as a source, and reworded if necessary based on the source. EDIT: I propose the following text, based on The Independent report:

An April 2019 report by the economists Mark Weisbrot and Jeffrey Sachs attribute over 40,000 deaths to sanctions during 2017 and 2018, when excess mortality surged by 31 percent around the same time the new sanctions were put into place and oil production fell sharply. The US state department said the report was based on "speculation and conjecture" and placed blame on "Maduro’s ineptitude and economic mismanagement."

I'd say that is both concise and balanced, and addresses the issues raised by the editor who removed the earlier version. --C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Mark Weisbrot, as well as the CEPR, have been described as biased towards the Venezuelan government; I feel this may be a case of WP:CHERRY. It would be good to make a mention of the disagreements per NPOV, but I'm not sure how. I invite other editors to comment. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It is my understanding that, while they are a left-leaning think tank, such criticism of being paid off by the Venezuelan government have had to be retracted by some news outlets or there would have been lawsuits brought by CEPR and Weisbrot. Nevertheless, it's not cherry picked; it's been in the news cycle over the last day or two, which is how I learned of it. Would Jeffrey Sachs, a renowned economist, have co-authored a report which was totally baseless given his position at Columbia University? I deemed it relevant per the coverage in reliable sources like The Independent and given that Sachs is a co-author. I have added the US state department criticism from the article per NPOV. I figured that was sufficient given its the only real criticism in the article. It is relevant as it also buttresses the concerns of De Zayas and others who have decried sanctions as having exacerbated this crisis. As a side note, I found it interesting that the article also said this about Idriss Jazairy's criticism of the sanctions, which might also be relevant to this article: I quote (in italics): This is not the first time that concerns have been raised about the humanitarian impact of US sanctions. In January, UN special rapporteur Idriss Jazairy said sanctions “which can lead to starvation and medical shortages are not the answer to the crisis in Venezuela”. I wasn't going to include this but perhaps it should be given Jazairy's position at the UN. Needless to say, this is all certainly DUE material by my estimation. EDIT: here is his statement per the OHCHR. This perhaps something else which should be included. I can't say that I'm not surprised it hasn't been included already, but I digress.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

There are too many high quality, highly reliable sources (and neutral, third-party, independent) that debunk this for it to be given any weight in this article, particularly considering the source. It is a fringe theory, and this:

... excess mortality surged by 31 percent around the same time the new sanctions were put into place ...

is a good indication of why this fringe theory has no credence. Mortality surged by a third before anything had even changed, because the sanctions had just been put in place? That stretches credibility, and explains why other sources do not report this, and even deny it. That a UN person says it can happen (and may eventually) is quite a reasonable position to take, and quite different from the stretch to say that it did happen coincident with sanctions. Even if this data were the case, we would have to ask why the government suddenly had an urge to supply some health data. To a friendly think tank. When other sources don't report anything of this kind. (Thanks though for letting us now that CEPR and Weisbrot sue ... I wonder how you came to be in possession of such information; could you provide a publicly available source? Please review WP:COI) UNDUE, FRINGE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I was unaware that sources were debunking this already. Who is denying this? Can you give some examples? It is explained in the article, as the sanctions made it harder for Venezuela to import food, medicine and medical equipment, and the surge in excess mortality coincided with the sanctions making these much needed materials harder to acquire. In another article from Business Standard, which also covers the report, they quote Jeffrey Sachs as saying "American sanctions are deliberately aiming to wreck Venezuela's economy and thereby lead to regime change. It's a fruitless, heartless, illegal and failed policy, causing grave harm to the Venezuelan people."

Now Sachs is not someone I always agree with, but I'd hardly call him "fringe" given his reputation.

Regarding the lawsuits, they are discussed on Weisbrot's Misplaced Pages page. Not sure why you are linking to a COI page. Are you insinuating I have some conflict of interest? I have been an editor here for over 12 years, and have absolutely no connections with any organization or think tank, so you might want to take a step back with the bad faith insinuations.

At the very least the statements by Idriss Jazairy per OHCHR should be included in the sanctions section. This CEPR report is just a day or two old and is still in the news cycle, so let's see if it gains any more traction.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

How is The Independent a "low-quality" source User:SandyGeorgia? How is an award-winning scholar like Jeffrey Sachs "without credence" ? Are you using the same logic that led you to consider Weisbrot's Oxford University Press scholarship an "opinion"? If it's notable enough for the State Department to address, it most certainly belongs here. GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

That's actually a good point. Besides the notability of Sachs, which the other editors in this discussion have failed to address, the fact that the US state department had to issue statements dismissing the report does add to its significance.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm now more inclined to exclude mentioning the conclusions of the report itself given the opposition by some editors here and instead include the specific criticisms of the US economic sanctions by both Sacks and Jazairy which are quoted above, given their positions and prominence. EDIT: I am considering adding the following sentence to the section on sanctions, right after the last sentence of the second paragraph:

"Both the American economist Jeffrey Sachs and UN special rapporteur Idriss Jazairy have expressed concerns that the sanctions will further exacerbate the crisis and harm the Venezuelan people, and that the sanctions could be an attempt by the United States to foment regime change in Venezuela."

I believe this adds some balance to the section which is sorely lacking, IMO. Both notable indivuduals and no mention of CEPR/Weisbrot. Thoughts?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It's rather incredulous that someone is asking "who is denying this". I'll start with a few only, since I am guessing I must be misunderstanding the question:

• While “Chavismo” (socialist) elites were hit with a variety of sanctions over the last three years, they’ve done little to make an impact on ordinary Venezuelans, whose lives have spiraled into a humanitarian crisis as hyperinflation has driven nearly 3 million to flee. "US sanctions squeezed Venezuela's Chavismo elites. This time, it's oil". Public Radio International. 31 January 2019. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
• International humanitarian aid to Venezuela increased in 2018, after a shift in the government’s discourse from entirely denying the humanitarian crisis to recognizing an economic one. The government, however, blamed the shortages on US imposed sanctions, even though the humanitarian crisis preceded sanctions on the oil sector that could potentially have an impact on the importation of food and medicines. "Venezuela's humanitarian emergency: Large-scale UN response needed to address health and food crises". Human Rights Watch. 4 April 2019. Retrieved 7 April 2019.
• The extent and severity of the crises in food, health care and basic services, have not been fully acknowledged by the authorities, thus the measures they have adopted have been insufficient. ... Although this pervasive and devastating economic and social crisis began before the imposition of the first economic sanctions in 2017, I am concerned that the recent sanctions on financial transfers related to the sale of Venezuelan oil within the United States may contribute to aggravating the economic crisis, with possible repercussions on people's basic rights and wellbeing. "10 claves del informe de Michelle Bachelet sobre Venezuela" . Prodavinci (in Spanish). 20 March 2019. Retrieved 20 March 2019."Oral update on the situation of human rights in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela". OHCHR. 20 March 2019. Retrieved 23 March 2019.
• Noting that the deprivation long predates recently imposed US sanctions, it said that “Venezuelan authorities under Maduro have concealed the official health information. They have harassed and retaliated against those who collect data or speak out about food and medicine shortages.” DeYoung, Karen (4 April 2019). "Venezuela's health system in 'utter collapse' as infectious diseases spread, report says". The Washington Post. Retrieved 7 April 2019.

I could provide dozens more, but don't think that will help the discussion. So, you are either misreading or misquoting the sources you supply above, or not understanding the timing involved, between OLD and NEW sanctions. For example, you say, ""American sanctions are deliberately aiming to wreck Venezuela's economy and thereby lead to regime change. It's a fruitless, heartless, illegal and failed policy, causing grave harm to the Venezuelan people." That is discussing what COULD happen per NEW sanctions. CEPR is claiming DID happen per OLD sanctions. The old sanctions, according to almost every reliable source, had no effect on well-being, were aimed at the chavista elite and not the economy, and the crisis seriously pre-dated the sanctions. The NEW (more recently applied) sanctions could or are expected to maybe have an impact, as they do hit the economy. Hence, the importance of getting Maduro to accept humanitarian aid for the people. But the CEPR source is claiming that OLD deaths were due to the OLD sanctions, and that they happened immediately, and happened already. There is no other source I am aware of that supports this, and the UN, HRW and Johns Hopkins School of Public Health took a good look at the issue. If you want to beef up text dealing with how the NEW sanctions could affect people, that would be understandable (although possibly breaching WP:CRYSTALBALL, because how do we know if humanitarian aid will help and forestall the effect). But adding a fringe theory supported by no good sources that I know of that says that people died years ago because of sanctions, you will need to find something other than fringe support for that notion.

I see now the PanAmPost issue at the Weisbrot article; I read your post to indicate a broader tendency to lawsuits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Break

Further, I am really not understanding what you all want to include, since the UN OHCHR report is already mentioned, prominently in the lead, and covers the issue that the NEW sanctions could worsen the crisis, which is NOT what the CEPR report is saying:

• In 2018, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) documented that "information gathered indicates that the socioeconomic crisis had been unfolding for several years prior to the imposition of these sanctions"; Michelle Bachelet updated the situation in a 20 March oral report following the visit of a five-person delegation to Venezuela, saying that the social and economic crisis was dramatically deteriorating, the government had not acknowledged or addressed the extent of the crisis, and she was concerned that although the "pervasive and devastating economic and social crisis began before the imposition of the first economic sanctions", the sanctions could worsen the situation.

Yes, you clearly misunderstood, as I was referring to direct rebuttals to the CEPR report. But as I mentioned in my latest posting, I believe it would be better to mention the criticisms leveled by Sachs and the UN official (Idriss Jazairy, whose statement is not included in the article at this point) in the sentence provided above, rather than the conclusions of the CEPR report. I believe DUE weight applies here, as more than a few experts are highly critical of the NEW US sanctions and how they could worsen the crisis, and what the intent of the sanctions are.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Allright, let me re-read everything and start over ... I got caught in an editing error caused by ref tags and lost the plot. After dinner I will re-read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Re-boot. I'm back, having eaten, and I'm sorry for losing the plot above (and my apologies for the COI query). Picking up a few pieces I missed:

I said, "we would have to ask why the government suddenly had an urge to supply some health data", and now that I have read the actual primary source, I see that their number was pure speculation and not based on any government data, so strike that. Reading the primary source makes it easy to understand why this report has not gotten traction in the press and to see the shortcomings in the analysis, but analysis of primary sources is not our place as editors, and we go by what the secondary sources. Nonetheless, I hope that reading the primary source at least helps both of you get a clearer understanding of why, as an example, when the Johns Hopkins report comes out, it is picked up by hundreds of high quality sources, while this report so far has not been picked up by hardly any.

This:

• "Mr Weisbrot, a cofounder of the CEPR, told The Independent the authors could not prove those excess deaths were the result of sanctions, but said the increase ran parallel to the imposition of the measures and an attendant fall in oil production, which has for decades been a mainstay of the Venezuelan economy."

• explains the problem with including this sort of speculative text in an encyclopedic article, when multiple high quality sources debunk this fringe theory, and almost no reliable sources have picked it up. I am not impressed that The Independent decided to report this, compared to the scores of sources that typically pick up Venezuelan stories and in this case, have not. Pushing something into Misplaced Pages that most of the reporting world has decided not to pick up is UNDUE.

• “You cannot prove a counter factual,” said Mr Weisbrot. “But not have another obvious explanation.”

• I believe he probably says that there is no "other obvious explanation" with a straight face, in spite of the abundance of evidence and reliable sources reporting on the many other obvious explanations, put forward by numerous independent, third-party sources. And that is why we aren't (at least yet) finding this theory broadly reported (and with time, we will probably find good sources explaining in detail why and how this is fringey, but time will tell).

• Asked to comment on the report’s claims that Washington’s sanctions had killed tens of thousands of people, the US state department said “as the writers themselves concede, the report is based on speculation and conjecture”.

• Of course they have to respond to something they are asked. But so far, we aren't seeing this in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal-- nothing. I suspect the reason is that reporters who have been on this story for years now are not stupid; they have seen all of the "other obvious explanations". The story is not getting wide traction, for reasons that aren't hard to understand.

To the query, "Would Jeffrey Sachs, a renowned economist, have co-authored a report which was totally baseless given his position at Columbia University?" I/We can't answer to what his motives are. We can see that so far, major sources are not running this theory.

To the statement: "I deemed it relevant per the coverage in reliable sources like The Independent", I'm deeming it fringe because of the number of sources who have chosen so far NOT to report it. Particularly when we compare to the huge number of sources that run every aspect of the Venezuela crisis right away.

To the statement, "This CEPR report is just a day or two old and is still in the news cycle, so let's see if it gains any more traction", that is a sensible approach to this situation. We have a report from someone with a known position on Venezuela matters, that by self-admission is pure speculation, and debunking/analyzing the primary source is not something for quick reporting or that fits into one or two news cycles. I suspect we may see better secondary reporting on it, or no more secondary reporting at all, but time will tell. Putting something that the authors acknowledge as speculative in an encyclopedia, when only one real source has picked it up and most have ignored it, doesn't make sense. I agree we could revisit if the situation changes.

In conclusion, so far, I don't think we're missing anything, but if the situation changes and we do need to add something, the highly speculative nature of this report would have to be mentioned. Not just that the US said it was speculation, but the authors' own admission. They basically ... based this claim on nothing ... in opposition to every other entity that has looked at this ... as can be seen by reading the primary source and which explains why it has not been widely reported. That is my take on the notion that the OLD sanctions caused the crisis. As to whether we need more text on the NEW sanctions and what they might cause, we already have that covered, and we are well getting in to WP:CRYSTAL if we overdo that point. Humanitarian aid is supposed to be in place; people in Venezuela are protesting that it is still not being delivered. Food is used as a weapon according to all reliable sources. So is medicine. We don't yet know if the Red Cross Aid will be delivered. Determinations of what factors do or don't worsen the crisis will be best understood over time, but in the current environment, where we have the multitude of sources addressing the way food and medicine are being used as weapons, it is hard in advance to state what may be caused by sanctions relative to other factors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Fine. I have no objections waiting to see what develops with this report, if anything. I already agreed to this above. Nevertheless, you have not addressed what I mentioned last time: including criticism of sanctions as an attempt by the US to foment regime change, addressed by both Sachs and Jazairy, both notable individuals. I believe this is DUE material, especially given the history of US intervention in Latin America. I'll repost it here:

"Both the American economist Jeffrey Sachs and UN special rapporteur Idriss Jazairy have expressed concerns that the sanctions will further exacerbate the crisis and harm the Venezuelan people, and that the sanctions could be an attempt by the United States to foment regime change in Venezuela."

--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

References

1. Buncombe, Andrew (April 27, 2019). "US sanctions on Venezuela responsible for 'tens of thousands' of deaths, claims new report". The Independent. Retrieved April 29, 2019.
2. "Venezuela sanctions harm human rights of innocent people, UN expert warns". OHCHR. January 31, 2019. Retrieved April 29, 2019.
3. "US oil sanctions take effect on Venezuela as crisis intensifies". Business Standard. April 28, 2019. Retrieved April 29, 2019.
4. "Human rights violations in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela: a downward spiral with no end in sight" (PDF). Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. June 2018. Retrieved 23 March 2019.
5. ^ "10 claves del informe de Michelle Bachelet sobre Venezuela" . Prodavinci (in Spanish). 20 March 2019. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
6. "Oral update on the situation of human rights in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela". OHCHR. 20 March 2019. Retrieved 23 March 2019. The extent and severity of the crises in food, health care and basic services, have not been fully acknowledged by the authorities, thus the measures they have adopted have been insufficient. ... Although this pervasive and devastating economic and social crisis began before the imposition of the first economic sanctions in 2017, I am concerned that the recent sanctions on financial transfers related to the sale of Venezuelan oil within the United States may contribute to aggravating the economic crisis, with possible repercussions on people's basic rights and wellbeing.
7. "Venezuela sanctions harm human rights of innocent people, UN expert warns". OHCHR. January 31, 2019. Retrieved April 29, 2019.
8. "US oil sanctions take effect on Venezuela as crisis intensifies". Business Standard. April 28, 2019. Retrieved April 29, 2019.

"...we aren't seeing this in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal-- nothing."

Actually, The New York Times published a piece by Jeffrey Sachs raising these very issues:

"By commandeering Venezuela’s only lifeline to food supplies and oil field equipment, the United States has lit the fuse. By the Trump administration’s own estimates, sanctions will cost Venezuela’s economy $11 billion in lost oil revenue in the next year, which is equal to 94 percent of what the country spent last year in goods imports. The result is likely to be an economic and humanitarian catastrophe of a dimension never seen in our hemisphere." GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't have time to look just now, but if that is all they are saying, that seems to make the point I raised above. They are not saying past deaths can be attributed to old sanctions. They are agreeing that NEW sanctions MAY cause hardship. And are you telling me they published a piece authored by him? Not independent verification. I will check in on that article later. Re: C.J. on Sanctions, wouldn't that be dealt with in the Sanctions article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: The UN Human Rights Commissioner report. There's nothing in it that contradicts Sachs and Weisbrot at all. The commissioner admits that her information is incomplete, and research like theirs is needed. To use the complete non-WP:CHERRY quote:

"While it is necessary to assess the impact of economic sanctions on the capacity of the Government to fulfill its human rights obligations in more detail, information gathered indicates that the socio-economic crisis had been unfolding for several years prior to the imposition of these sanctions."

But CEPR don't deny that there was an economic crisis prior to 2017. Their executive summary even says 2017 sanctions "exacerbated Venezuela’s economic crisis and made it nearly impossible to stabilize the economy, contributing further to excess deaths."

With just one sketchy sentence, Bachelet didn't make a meaningful pronouncement, and it isn't clear she even meant to. GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Re SandyGeorga: That's not a bad idea. I'll look into it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the CEPR report was mentioned on Tucker Carlson's Fox News program, of all places. It seems to be getting some traction. Will keep an eye on it for sure.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Socialism

Many people blame the current crisis in Venezuela on socialism, but apparently mentioning that is "blatant POV pushing." Did I say it was MY opinion? No. Did I say it was others opinions? Yes. I'm sorry, CJ Griffith, that you don't like Fox Business, but it is a reputable site, along with The New York Times.--Rockclaw1030 (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of these opinion pieces is to link the unique crisis in Venezuela to politicians in the US who push for progressive policies, when what these people advocate has nothing to do with Venezuela. These screeds are intended to smear political opponents in the US, not accurately describe the crisis in Venezuela. This is why it is absolutely WP:UNDUE. And yes, it is POV-pushing, and it will be reverted yet again.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I have to follow the edits, but tha claim tha many from the opposition to Maduro allege that the crisis is based on socialist policies is blatantly uncontroversial.--MaoGo (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

First of all, such policies are more accurately described as populist rather than socialist, and not one reputable source describes Venezuela as having a “socialist” economy, which would mean that the means of production are entirely socially owned. Outside of some worker coops, this is not the case. It’s a heavily mixed economy dominated by the petroleum sector. This is unique to Venezuela, not the United States. This is what makes these op ed sources wildly undue: their intended purpose is to use the crisis to smear politicians in the US who push for progressive policies, which have absolutely nothing to do with the unique situation in Venezuela. Bottom line is that these sources are absolutely unacceptable.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why do you bring the US to this? We may look for better sources, but if you have followed Venezuelan media (pro or contra Maduro), Maduro considers his economy as socialist and the opposition blames it for it. We are not here to decide if the economy is socialist enough or not, but many people would blame it on those terms. Here is a source --MaoGo (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Also the article is full of mentions of socialist policies (this makes Venezuela socialist or not? you can decide for yourself), why do you bother with that particular one?--MaoGo (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

See my edit below. socialist policies do not make an actual socialist economy. I have said why I have issues with this. Sourcing is terrible and biased in the extreme, and it is even more undue for the lede. It is absolutely unacceptable for a wiki article. Both op-eds have no place here.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Fine, we will remove Mike Pence, but I still believe that this is apart of this story. I don't believe this is WP:UNDUE--Rockclaw1030 (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The wording is fine with or without Pence. --MaoGo (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

And I'll add the Washington Post story. Thanks for the idea. And the fact that C.J. Griffith added a POV lead, sheesh.--Rockclaw1030 (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Did you even read the sources in question? Because the sources added bring the US and US politicians into this, that's why!!!!!! They attack several different politicians in the US who have nothing to do with Venezuela: AOC, Warren and Sanders. Wildly, absolutely undue materials. This is the intended purpose of these screeds obviously, to use the crisis to attack political opponents in the US as advocates of Venezuelan-style socialism, which is not the case at all! And to describe the Venezuelan economy as a "socialist economy" in the lede, impeccable sourcing would be required, not right-wing op-eds which are intended to smear, not inform. A socialist economy is a very specific thing, and given that much of the economy is still in private hands I don't think such a description accurately describes what kind of economy Venezuela has. Even the Venezuela article describes it as a mixed economy, which is accurate. simply having a few self-described socialist policies in place, such as expanding worker coops, does not make a full blown socialist economy.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

would you agree with the lead now? The WaPo article is more nuanced and I removed the NYT opinion article. --MaoGo (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, calling "much of the economy is still in private hands" is a red herring not related to this issue. If you want to dwell into that, maybe I am tempted to ask you, have you seen Venezuela's ranking in private property indexes ? and economic freedom ?--MaoGo (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't. First of all, the Fox Business article is still there, and is even worse than the article that was removed as it attacks Sanders and Warren in multiple paragraphs, even though they have nothing to do with the crisis in Venezuela. And secondly, I still take issue with describing the actual economy of Venezuela as "socialist". It will take more than an op ed in the Washington Post to verify this. For this article to be both accurate and neutral, it would require a description of Venezuela's economy as a mixed economy and some socialist policies in place, which are more accurately described as "populist" policies by some observers. As it is, this is a dubious description of the economy in the article by my estimation, and a dubious inline tag might be required until an actual reliable source describes the economy as socialist, preferably an academic source. And I'm not advocating adding "much of the economy is still in private hands" into the article. The private sector still exists to a significant extent in Venezuela, does it not? So the means of production of the country are not socially owned, which is what a socialist economy would be. (and for the love of god, one of your indices is from the corporate-funded neoliberal think tank, The Heritage Foundation. Ugh!)--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Not all that is left is the Washington Post article. Thankgs, MaoGo.--Rockclaw1030 (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

this is much appreciated, and the article is better for it. But I added a dubious inline tag to indicate a much better source needed for the description "socialist economy".--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am sorry I did not read the Sanders part. I can agree to disagree on what is Venezuela model right now, this is not a WP:FORUM, but going back to the issue: the statement that some critics claim that the crisis was created due to the adoption of "socialism" (whatever this means for them) is undeniable. Also may we now take the POV template?--MaoGo (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Already done now that those terrible articles have been removed. Thanks. A discussion on the economy would be appropriate for the talk page, given what is in the article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Not all that is left is the Washington Post article. Thankgs, MaoGo. Would it make every happy if we wrote something like "socialist leaning economy"? --Rockclaw1030 (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

A more accurate and neutral description would be a mixed economy with populist policies in my estimation.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the understanding. Let us try to get better sources before we continue this discussion. --MaoGo (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Just wanting Misplaced Pages to be neutral, not politically left or right. --Rockclaw1030 (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Socialism not to blame

C.J. Griffin made this edit with edit summary, "Adding a counter-point to the opinion that socialist policies are to blame, with op-ed from WP:RS" using this OpEd. Jamez42 deleted the key portion "less to do with socialism", despite the clear title in the source, "Here's why you can't blame socialism for Venezuela's crisis". Deleting that phrase makes no sense. I reverted and explained this in my edit summary. I am baffled as to why Jamez42 reverted a second time here. Jamez42: Please self-revert and do not edit war to your preferred version. You can discuss, but for now C.J. Griffin's inclusion of the language with the source stands. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Other op-eds in reliable sources have put forth similar arguments, such as this (No, Venezuela doesn’t prove anything about socialism) in The Washington Post, which I am considering adding as a citation. I agree with you the original narrative should be restored, as that is the crux of the argument made in the original source. The door was opened for this by editor Rockclaw1030 when he sought to include op eds blaming in particular the "socialist economy" for the crisis. Problem was "socialist economy" wasn't mentioned in any of them, and they basically slammed socialism in general, including progressive politicians in the US like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and of course a favorite target, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, none of whom have anything to do with Venezuela or even back the regime there. I argued this was highly undue, and through discussion "socialist economy" was changed to "socialist policies" and the offending sources removed. Nevertheless, I still felt it was too simplistic of an argument, and one that is overtly political and POV. This is why I felt it necessary to include op-eds in reliable sources that push back against this highly politically charged narrative that "socialism" is almost entirely to blame for the crisis.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Adding additional sources to support the change is not reverting. I explained in my edit summaries that the reasons aren't mutually exclusive, and opposing the wording putting an example. Since these explanations are both given by critics, the phrase could say "less with economic war and more to do with (...)", which can show how it can be undue. Expropriations, price fixing, subsidies, expansion of social welfare, just to mention some, can all be considered socialist policies and have been blamed in the past for the economic crisis, but that doesn't exclude that authoritarianism, corruption and mismanagement has taken place too, unlike other countries. If we are to use such phrasing based on said source, attribution should be used, leaving the wording as "According to Dion Rabouin (...)" or "According to a Yahoo! Finance article (...)", which is already problematic.

Again, I ask not to bring into the discussion US or its politics since it will only bring confusion, and debunking US politicians' claims should not be the purpose of the information provided here. Yes, the current polarization is regrettable, Joanna Haussman talked in her NYT opinion piece how Venezuelans end up been caught in the middle, but editing is not for righting great wrongs. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, I ask not to bring into the discussion US or its politics... Request denied. The US is an actor in Venezuela, and much mainstream commentary references US policies and politics.GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Then, in this case, we will get dragged into strawman fallacies and confusion over the differences between progressive policies in the US and socialist policies in Venezuela, just like currently in the United States. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

As if this page were currently free of strawman fallacies lol...GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• B-Class Venezuela articles
• Top-importance Venezuela articles
• Venezuela articles