Talk:Crisis in Venezuela

A comment - oil, Oil, OIL!

I've taken cursory looks at this article and contributed a small section on the effects of the crisis on the oil regions, that seems to have been appreciated. It seems to me the article is not quite addressing, or emphasizing, the main origins of the crisis which is the two problems of (1) the collapse of oil prices and (2) the failures of the Chavez/Maduro governments (and associated corruption of PDVSA) to maintain oil production. (Perhaps with corruption directed at siphoning oil revenue??? I know nothing of that.) If it were me, I would attempt to reorganize this article around these main points. The article does a good job of describing all the effects of the collapse of oil revenue - the government has little money to spend for its promised social programs, but not how and why that revenue disappeared. For example, a figure showing the decline in oil prices with corresponding crisis points would be interesting.

(As an aside, I noted the arguments regarding "Socialism" above. I was about to complain about the quote and citation that has been removed from the article, with the observation that citations from the U.S. Department of State can no longer be considered NPOV. A sad state of affairs. The situation in Venezuela has not much to do with socialism and quite a lot to do with oil! (and a lot of economic mismanagement, to be sure) Socialist Norway is one of the wealthiest countries with its oil.) My 2 cents. Bdushaw (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned before: Expropriations, price fixing, subsidies, expansion of social welfare, just to mention some, can all be considered socialist policies. That being said, it would be completely appropriate to include some background, if I'm not mistaken this has been proposed before to talk about the history of Petróleos de Venezuela. Even though it has hired more workers over the year, its production at first stayed the same, and Rafael Ramírez's direction deserves analysis. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I would not normally reply in such a situation (endless, pointless arguments are not my thing...), but I see where you are from and your intention - I have all the sympathies in the world for Venezuela. What you are referring to with expropriations, price fixing, etc. has more to do with totalitarianism, in a communist style, than socialism. Norway does not expropriate or price fix or subsidize! Really, one cannot describe these situations with a simple political label - and "socialism" is such a broad term that can be used, interpreted, or understood in countlessly different ways. I am offering no opinion one way or the other on socialism, I just point out it is more complicated than a label. Meanwhile, on another galactic plane, the right wing elements in the United States are attempting to label the crisis in Venezuela as a consequence of socialism, attempting to use Venezuela as a clear example of how bad socialism is. Their idea is that if that line of thought is followed, they can then more easily dismantle things like social security, medicare, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in the United States. This was the obvious basis for the unfortunate statement from the U.S. State Department that was removed from this article. All of this nonsense is best left out of the article and out of the talk page discussion. If we must use a label for the Venezuelan situation/governance, "rigidly ideological", "incompetence", "self-preservation", or "ignorance" would be a far better, more accurate words.

In my view, the weaknesses in the Venezuelan economy/system were becoming evident during the Chavez years - see the quote from 2005 I added by Brossard in this article. The collapse in oil prices then greatly aggravated the situation, with the political hacks then running PDVSA adding fuel to the fire (so to speak...by mismanaging oil production). Then it seems obvious that, among other errors, Venezuela started madly printing money, giving the hyperinflation and causing even more real pain, if that were possible. The hyperinflation is reminiscent of the Weimar Republic of post-world war I Germany - (a government that was not socialist...) If one had to put a label on the present day Venezuelan government it would be "totalitarian". Interestingly, previous Venezuelan dictators survived by cooperating with and exploiting the American oil companies - (I've recently been reading: M.T. Salas (2009). The Enduring Legacy: Oil, Culture, and Society in Venezuela. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 344 pp. ISBN 978-0-8223-9223-1) an avenue that Maduro does not have.

I do not know how/if the Russians/Chinese/Iranians are having any significant influence on events - my impression is they are still mostly non-entities. Via con dios, Venezuela. Bdushaw (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bdushaw: Thank you very much for your wishes. Even though I could disagree with the definitions, you are right for the most part. Taking care about WP:FORUM, I have expressed my regret about how Venezuela has become an excuse for fearmongering in other talk pages and I hope it doesn't generate confusion or distractions to improve the articles. I think it's badly needed for more people to be informed, and it's good to see these kinds of arguments and discourse. Bendiciones. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding oil, this article in Forbes today. The theme of the article is along the lines of my original intent in posting on this talk page. The present crisis has its origins in the mismanagement and corruption of oil resources. Bdushaw (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Norway is about as socialist as a duck is a moose. Dunutubble (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Are Tasnim News Agency and Orinico Tribune reliable sources for this article? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: There have been discussions on Tasnim's reliability in the past (Iranian media, news agencies, and revolutionary departments, Tasnim, RfC: PressTV), where concerns about reliability and antisemitism have been raised, although I don't know it well enough to comment on it. On the other hand, Orinico Tribune is part of the Bolivarian Communication and Information System, meaning that it is not an independent source. I have removed the latter from the article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Greenwald's piece in The Intercept

User:NoonIcarus deleted this material from Glenn Greenwald's piece in The Intercept on the grounds that it violates WP:OPINION. (I should point out that this editor first deleted it without explanation, while adding other material at the same time.) I would argue the opposite: this policy pertains more to opinions of editors and not necessarily those published in reliable sources, especially once proper attribution is applied. As such, the material is properly attributed to Greenwald and published in a reliable source. In addition, given the controversial nature of this particular event, the early 2019 humanitarian aid package sent by the US per the Trump Administration, the point of view is perhaps WP:DUE given the Administration was deliberately using the aid package to undermine the current Venezuelan government, as reported in other reliable sources (here and here) and even from the agency that provided the relief (USAID) - this unbelievably is not even mentioned in the article. Based on this, and what is stated in WP:OPINION: “Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know: Who advocates the point of view; What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)”, I believe the Greenwald material should be restored and perhaps augmented with these sources and others as this point of view is completely omitted from this section.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Criticism regarding the 2019 shipment of aid is already covered in the section, specifically from the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations, the latter of which warned against the politicization of the aid. The point of view is covered by more prominent sources, which more importantly leads to the question: what is the importance of adding specifically Glenn Greenwald here? I don't think its inclusion is due for these reasons, particularly given that this is an article about the Crisis in general and not the main one (where, from what I understand, it was also removed for the same reason). --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@C.J. Griffin: Many thanks for the last changes. I believe they're an improvement regarding the last version. They could be moved to the article directly, but I have no strong feelings regarding this. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad we could find some common ground on this. I felt this was better and more pertinent material than simply restoring Greenwald's opinion. It looks like it is already mentioned in the article 2019 shipping of humanitarian aid to Venezuela, and I'm just seeing this now. Given it's not a copy and paste I think both articles benefit from mentioning it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Venezuelan crisis (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Sanction

Sanction imposed by the west to target the government. 2600:1702:31A:7910:B920:B258:5643:9356 (talk) 12:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Those… are mentioned. I mean, they could be more prominent, but Wikipedia is bound to be a summary of what reputable English language (western) media say. Making sanctions more prominent as the things to blame for economic problems may be seen as taking a stance that is against the reputable media/experts, which is something editors aren't supposed to do. Samolukadjo (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)