File talk:Venezuela president recognition map.svg/Archive 1

Countries to be add/removed, concerns, etc.

Please add concerns below.--ZiaLater (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Spain: Source --Faustino Sojo (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done @Faustino Sojo: Spain supported the National Assembly, but did not make a clear declaration recognzing Guaidó.

Support for National Assembly ≠ Recognition of Guaidó. Thanks for using this page!--ZiaLater (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Germany source Kingsif (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done @Kingsif: Support for National Assembly ≠ Recognition of Guaidó. Majority of reliable sources are stating things along the lines of "XXXX shared support for the National Assembly, but stopped short of declaring Guaidó acting president". We need explicit declarations of support (ex: United States recognizes Guaidó as the interim president of Venezuela).--ZiaLater (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Add Western Sahara/Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic as red. Source: https://allafrica.com/stories/201901140151.html Fenetrejones (talk)14:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done @Fenetrejones: Territory is not represented in map and is highly disputed. Source shows attendence to inauguration, but not recognition for Maduro. Thank you for using the discussion page!--ZiaLater (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Kosovo is shown but that is also highly disputed--([[User talk:Fenetrejones|talk15:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenetrejones (talk • contribs) 15:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The disputed territory is not enough reason to avoid their representation, we have the same situation with Kosovo and Taiwan, Wich have representation in the map--Christogol (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Algeria

Source: http://www.radiomundial.com.ve/article/comisión-mixta-argelia-venezuela-evaluó-cooperación-petrolera-educativa-y-aérea "He also celebrated the swearing in of Nicolás Maduro as President of the Republic for the period 2019 - 2025."-Fenetrejones (talk)15:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Fenetrejones: Independent source?--ZiaLater (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Belize

Source:https://www.breakingbelizenews.com/2019/01/20/prime-minister-barrow-speaks-out-against-foreign-intervention-in-nicaragua-and-venezuela/-Fenetrejones (talk)15:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Calling for non-intervention does not mean support for Maduro.--ZiaLater (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Georgia

Prime Minister of Georgia, Mamuka Bakhtadze supported to Guaido as Interim President of Venezuela.

source: Georgian, English, English. გიო ოქრო (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Please check. Thanks. გიო ოქრო (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done @გიო ოქრო:

---

Faroe Islands

Blue because it is a territory of Denmark as well as Guam, US Virgin Islands, American Samoa and Northern Mariana Islands because those are us territories just like Puerto Rico-Fenetrejones (talk)16:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done @Fenetrejones: --ZiaLater (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: - is Greenland added, too? Kingsif (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

---

El Salvador

Has apparently changed sides to support Guaidó Source. Will look for more RS. Kingsif (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

more RS El Mundo Kingsif (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

---

North Korea

North Korea has always supported Chavism, Source --Faustino Sojo (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

States

Can you add in the descriptions the states tha recognize Juan Guaidó and states that recognize Maduro? --Yacine Boussoufa (Scrivimi!) 16:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC) ates that t S — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yacine Boussoufa (talk • contribs) 16:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Sweden

Whats the source for Sweden's recognition of Guaidó? --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ahmedo Semsurî: Here.--ZiaLater (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Thanks. Also, if supporting Guaidó = recognizing him as President, Ukraine should be added to the list [1] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC).

But Sweden does not fully recognize him (to Juan Guiadó) as interim president. The same attitude as Spain: a shy support.. [2]--Gustavo Parker (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The Seymour Tribune, known for their excellent coverage of Seymour, Indiana (population 19,480) and Swedish foreign politics. Here's the Swedish minister for foreign affairs on the same topic: https://twitter.com/margotwallstrom/status/1088329170462089217 (the Denmark and China entries looks like bullshit too -- China said today that they'll stay out of this -- but with enough edits I'm sure the map will approach reality at some point in the future :-) --85.6.228.190 18:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Denmark

Same as Sweden. It is not clear [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvdbure (talk • contribs) 18:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Switzerland

Switzerland has also recognized to Juan Guaidó.

Suiza reconoce a Guaidó como presidente encargado y a la AN como único poder legítimo

[4] Tweet of the Swiss Chancellery.

Do not forget.--Gustavo Parker (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/uncertainty_swiss-concerned-about-the-deepening-crisis-in-venezuela/44708320 This article disputes the previous statements. Jurryaany (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Color

Why did you change color from green to blue?--Gustavo Parker (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Impru20: Any thoughts?--ZiaLater (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the green color was better. But what do you think? and the others?--Gustavo Parker (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the red/blue scheme for full support to Guaidó/Maduro is ok, since these are typically the colors associated both to Venezuela's opposition and Maduro's government. I don't know on the particular shades to be used to prevent visibility issues in different formats; if it is ok like this, then it should be good. However, I think that another color should be used for Venezuela. On the one hand, as has been commented here, black could be associated with evil and thus bring an unwanted bias to the map; on the other hand, I think that so much blue around Venezuela makes it less distinguishable as it would be desirable. Yellow? Pink? Just to give some ideas. Impru20 (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Governments that call for elections

Maybe we should color the countries that support new elections a third color, since its a significant matter as well? [5]--Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this. These countries are indeed voicing a stance on the issue, just not the binary full support to either Maduro or Guaidó. Impru20 (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

 I agree --Faustino Sojo (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Countries that urge free elections: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Mexico and Uruguay are calling for a "peaceful and democratic process", nor referred explicit as elections. --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

[12] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

[13], [14], [15] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

[16], [17], [18], [19] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

UK

Foreign Minister Jeremy Hunt: "Maduro is not the legitimate leader of Venezuela... So the United Kingdom believes Juan Guaido is the right person to take Venezuela forward." This is basically a recognition for Guaidó. [20] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Literally, this does not clash with their previous stance that they support Guaidó as the head of the National Assembly, and it is not clear whether they are recognizing Guaidó's claim. Other countries supporting the National Assembly but not openly recognizing Guaidó have also considered Maduro and the 2018 election as illegitimate. Nonetheless, this is an argument for bringing those countries to the map in some form. Impru20 (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-46994271 "Within minutes of his declaration, Mr Trump recognised Mr Guaidó as the country's legitimate head of state. A number of South American nations, as well as Canada and the UK, have now followed suit." Nickjbor (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The issue comes when you check the full bit from the UK: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/24/venezuela-maduro-guaido-defense-minister-civil-war

“This regime has done untold damage to the people of Venezuela, 10% of the population have left Venezuela such is the misery they are suffering,” the foreign secretary, Jeremy Hunt, said in a statement issued in Washington before a meeting with the US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, and Vice-President Mike Pence.
“So the United Kingdom believes Juan Guaidó is the right person to take Venezuela forward. We are supporting the US, Canada, Brazil and Argentina to make that happen.”
The statement stopped just short of echoing US language on recognising Guaidó, however. “It is UK policy to recognise states, not governments,” a British official said.

They have shut themselves down from recognizing any government, so it is obvious they have not recognized Guaidó. Again, a shy support, which could be solved by adding a third color in the map but this is not being done yet, it seems. Nonetheless, we're not in a hurry to color countries, so there is no need for any rush to have countries colored as soon as possible before full recognition is actually confirmed. Impru20 (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

We either add a color to UK or change the wording in the main article: It reads "though some of its member states, like the United Kingdom, later said they fully recognize Guaidó." — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.158.111.52 (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

UK has officially backed Juan Guaido in the UN Security Council held on January 26th, 2019 - http://www.ntn24america.com/america-latina/venezuela/en-vivo-consejo-de-seguridad-de-onu-discute-la-crisis-en-venezuela-103256 — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.158.111.52 (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Remove China

The source in the article said that Maduro asked for China's support, not that they gave it, and this Forbes article says they've stuck to neutrality. Kingsif (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I would not say the same. If China has always supported chavism. Even that country sent a delegation on January 10 to Venezuela for the start of Maduro's second government. Although he has not said it explicitly, everyone already knows that the Chinese government supports Nicolás Maduro.

Venezuela: China ofrece su apoyo a Maduro y censura "intrusión" de Estados Unidos

Rusia y China reiteran su apoyo a Nicolás Maduro

--Gustavo Parker (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I think Kingsif has a point. As per the provided sources and per this, China obviously leans towards Maduro but they have not been explicit on it. This would be similar to countries making announcements leaning towards Guaidó but not fully recognizing him. Impru20 (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The Chinese MFA's statement seems to explicitly state that they are with Maduro: "Asked directly if China recognised Maduro, Hua said Beijing sent representatives to his inauguration. “We respect Venezuela’s efforts to uphold its sovereignty, independence and stability,” she added." [21]--Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Check this MFA's official statement: Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying's Regular Press Conference on January 24, 2019

Q: Does China still recognize Nicholas Maduro as the current President of Venezuela?

A: Like I said just now, many countries including China as well as international organizations had sent representatives to attend the inauguration ceremony of President Maduro on this January 10. China supports the efforts made by the Venezuelan government to uphold national sovereignty, independence and stability. Yuzo555 (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

If they supported Maduro, they would have actually said that, instead of give a vague "well we sent someone to the inauguration". I.e. we have included/excluded other countries for the same not-complete statements of support. China gets no exemption. It doesn't recognize, it leans. Kingsif (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The case of China is difficult. Some state that China has remained neutral because they a owed money from Venezuela while others state that China supports Maduro, especially through his authorities and their tough stance in statements. With that said, China leans towards the support of Maduro.--ZiaLater (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The the EU leads towards supporting Juan Guaido, as UK, Germany and Poland have explicitly expressed. I just heard China (through their representative in the UN Security Council) say they support Venezuelans solving their differences, and that China follows a non-intervention policy, at no time did they even mention Maduro. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.158.111.52 (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I think to take recognition of Maduro presidency as a benchmark can be flimsy, in that every state who had made no announcement should be assumed as recognizing the pre-existing status quo, a.k.a. Maduro as president. Clearly we can't shade every other nation who did not endorse Guaido or explicitly rejected the 2018 election result in red. Therefore, to be shaded as red there should be along the line of clear support for Maduro, like the mention of his name, which is the case in Turkey and Russia. China, on the other hand, had since Guaido presidential crisis intentionally not mention Maduro's name. From all the record above there is no mentioning. The interpretation of the term "we send delegate on Jan 10" is the meaning that "we supported him then." So it should be along those who support non-intervention rather than support Maduro. --WeifengYang (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

France

I heard from Senator Marco Rubio that France recognized Guaido I looked in the history of the image and found this link: https://www.france24.com/en/20190124-venezuela-france-macron-calls-election-maduro-illegitimate-protests-opposition-guaido?ref=tw_i Can somebody verify it? Wollers14 (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

This statement alone is not enough to consider it support for Guaido, perhaps if a third color is considered the French Republic should be included. Jurryaany (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Add/Change

Red: North Korea https://www.infobae.com/america/venezuela/2018/11/27/el-presidente-de-la-asamblea-suprema-de-corea-del-norte-llego-a-venezuela-para-reunirse-con-nicolas-maduro/

Purple: Neutral States Armenia: https://www.aysor.am/en/news/2019/01/24/armenia-venezuela/1516973

Belarus: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-01/25/c_137771991.htm

Belize: https://www.breakingbelizenews.com/2019/01/20/prime-minister-barrow-speaks-out-against-foreign-intervention-in-nicaragua-and-venezuela/

Blue: Guam, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands and U.S. Virgin Islands: Faroe Islands and Greenland are Danish territories and they are blue. Puerto Rico is also a us territory and it is blue so these four should also be blue

Change El Salvador to blue: https://elmundo.sv/asamblea-de-el-salvador-desconoce-a-maduro-y-respalda-a-guaido-en-venezuela

Portugal: http://www.tribtown.com/2019/01/24/lt-venezuela-political-crisis-the-latest-5/

Switzerland: https://twitter.com/SwissMFAamerica/status/1088397932397776896

-Fenetrejones (talk)23:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, do not forget Switzerland.--Gustavo Parker (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done @Fenetrejones: @Gustavo Parker: --ZiaLater (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

South Africa

Are you sure that South Africa recognizes Maduro? I do not find any news source that confirms this.--Gustavo Parker (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

[22] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done: South Africa already included. --ZiaLater (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Dominican Republic

the DR has recognized Guaido [23] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done @Ahmedo Semsurî: --ZiaLater (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

México

The Mexico's foreign policy is about no intervention so the government did not make a clear declaration recognizing Guaidó or Maduro. The official statement issued today by Secretary of Foreign Affairs Marcelo Ebrard says as Uruguay to find a democratic and peaceful process and calling to the involved parts to a negotation. The red color is not accurate. --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Translated from Spanish: "The executive of Mexico, Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO), said that he supports his position on Venezuela to continue recognizing Nicolás Maduro as the legitimate agent of the State. Similarly, he defended the position of the United Nations Organization so that the actors involved avoid the increase in the conflict." [24] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedo Semsurî (talk • contribs) 01:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done @ProtoplasmaKid: Mexico recognizes Maduro as president.--ZiaLater (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: No, you're deciding by the quoted Venepress (!) by Ahmedo Semsurî as the reliable and more valid source instead of the official statement of the Foreign Affairs Secretariat. Secondly, AMLO and Marcelo Ebrard (secretariat of Foreign Affairs) said at the same press conference that Mexico is not in favor or not in favor of Maduro and remitted to the Foreign Affairs Secretariat statement as he said here at the press conference at Palacio Nacional of January 24, 2019. Translated from Spanish:

- Reporter: "Mexico is recognizing Maduro as the president, yes or not?

- Marcelo Ebrard: "we had diplomatic relations with Venezuela and Venezuela have a constituted government and at this moment we are not broke relations or unrecognized this government"

After - AMLO (41:31) "we are for compliance with constitutional principles, absolute and strict respect and the principles are that for a reason and are valid and are part of the history of the Mexican diplomatic" (42:44) "No intervention, self determination of the people, pacific solution of the controversies and respect of the Human Rights, by the union of these principles it is derived the position of the new Mexico government in this topic and others, we are not in favor or not in favor but for the fulfillment of the principles" --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The same goes with the China principle; any states that had made no announcement should then be assumed as recognizing the pre-existing status quo, which then become shading every state who had not make a statement of either explicit support of Guaido as president or 2018 presidential election as illegitimate shaded red. This would be unproductive in the work. Thus Mexico, like Uruguay, like China, who did not explicitly endorsement Maduro and his government by name, whose overall message is dialogue and non-intervention, should not be shaded red. I recommend starting a third neutral color to represent them. --WeifengYang (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Of course @WeifengYang: it's my opinion too. Let's wait for @ZiaLater: answer. Best, --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The official position of the current Mexican Government is very clear: "Mexico will not participate in the non-recognition of the government of a country with which it mantains diplomatic relations". Factual logic, then it is recognizing Maduro. In terms of diplomacy that is backing the pre-Presidential 2019 Crisis status quo. The map is intended to show countries that recognize either Maduro o Guaidó. Mexican position is very clear. That is why major newspapers and TV networks report Mexico recognizing Maduro as the current president of Venezuela. AlexCovarrubias (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Mexico was quick to say that they would recognize Maduro initially. Once Guaidó was sworn in as interim president and some countries were quick to respond, Mexico backtracked and took a more neutral stance in a joint statement with Uruguay. They are taking a similar route as the Vatican because they are opening themselves up to be used for a potential dialogue.--ZiaLater (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Just as that. Thanks, --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The current government of Mexico has always recognized Nicolás Maduro as president of Venezuela. Mexico's neutrality is with respect to the nonintervention or interference of its internal affairs:

• The López Obrador government said it recognizes President Maduro as "democratically" elected from Venezuela.
• Mexico still recognizes Maduro as legitimate president of Venezuela.
• Mexico will not ignore the government of Maduro: Chancellery — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaontiveros (talk • contribs) 05:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Regards Jaontiveros (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Netherlands

The Netherlands won't recognize Guaidó, but doesn't mention Maduro. [25]. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

the Netherlands has joined other countries in saying they will recognize Guaidó if Maduro doesn't promise elections within 8 days https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/ministeries/ministerie-van-buitenlandse-zaken/documenten/kamerstukken/2019/01/26/kamerbrief-over-recente-politieke-ontwikkelingen-in-venezuela --Poklane (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Haiti

Haiti signed the AOS declaration supporting Guaidó for President. [26] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done @Ahmedo Semsurî: --ZiaLater (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Neutral countries

Belize, Belarus and Armenia. We should also include them in the map.--Gustavo Parker (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done @Gustavo Parker: Neutral countries will be shown as not participating (grey). --ZiaLater (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Add/Change

El Salvador has changed sides

https://elmundo.sv/asamblea-de-el-salvador-desconoce-a-maduro-y-respalda-a-guaido-en-venezuela

North Korea is red

https://www.infobae.com/america/venezuela/2018/11/27/el-presidente-de-la-asamblea-suprema-de-corea-del-norte-llego-a-venezuela-para-reunirse-con-nicolas-maduro/

Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands are blue just like Puerto Rico because they are uUS territories

-Fenetrejones (talk)02:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Fenetrejones: El Salvador and North Korea have not yet taken positions.--ZiaLater (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

About Denmark

Denmark has said "that will support legitimate elected democratic institutions of Venezuela", but he has not explicitly recognized Juan Guaidó as president of the country, as United States did.

Denmark has the same attitude of Spain and Sweden: a shy support, is waiting to take a common position with the rest European Union.

So, said all this, should it be painted blue on the map?

This already had be mentioned higher.--Gustavo Parker (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Denmark is a bit tricky, since the FM retweeted a tweet that included Denmark as a country that recognized Guaidó as President [27]. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to change colors

I think that Maduro-supporting countries should be recolored to #FF0A00      and Guaidó-supporting countries should be recolored to #F78F1E      as they are the colors of their respective political parties (United Socialist Party of Venezuela for Maduro and Popular Will for Guaidó). ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Color of opposition is usually blue (MUD) since this is not strictly a VP government.--ZiaLater (talk) 08:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

In that case, shouldn't the blue be #00247D     ? Also, the red would still need to be changed to #FF0A00     . — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd vote dark blue and dark red per PDO's last comment. Kingsif (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

25 January 2019 revert

Revert was done because many countries were being added without sources. Will update the file in a few hours. Remember, it is more important to remain accurate than to provide information at the quickest pace. Although we are here to inform others, it is vital for Wikipedia and other projects to provide valid information.--ZiaLater (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Additional colors

Additional colors have been proposed here and on other talk pages.--ZiaLater (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

National Assembly support

Some have recommended using an additional color for countries supporting the National Assembly. This color would most likely be light blue since the nation would only slightly be recognizing the position of the transitional government.--ZiaLater (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

 I agree --Faustino Sojo (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that the color should be #CB9832      because that's the color of the logo of the National Assembly. ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Remove Switzerland

Officially they are not recognising either government; the head (used as source for Guaidó support) has retweeted it as well

https://twitter.com/eda_dfae/status/1088752224778506241?s=21 (Français)

https://twitter.com/swissmfa/status/1088761587790475265?s=21 (Anglais) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 103.70.152.5 (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done --ZiaLater (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

UK and Germany

Why has the UK and Germany been added to the map? --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ahmedo Semsurî: Germany has taken the side of Guaidó.--ZiaLater (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

A bit vague if you ask me. Earlier today it was "We will recognize Guaidó, if elections are not held" [28]. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. For the UK they have clearly abstained from picking one government over another stating that they only recognize countries, not governments. For Germany they have said they will recognize Guaido if elections are not held soon. Jurryaany (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The map is about countries currently recognising Guaido as the interim president. Germany is not doing so and neither is the UK. The UK only recognises him as the head of the national assembly, not as interim president. The link you posted to the interview of Germany's foreign minister shows him expressing support for Guaido's call for a free election. It does not show him recognising Guaido as an interim president. Adding either of them to the map is highly misleading, plain wrong, and makes this map look as if it was created for the sole purpose of representing the author's personal opinion instead of the actual situation. Sarrotrkux (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

UK and Germany have recognized the National Assembly as the "only democratically elected institution in Venezuela and led by Juan Guaido" (literal words by the German representative to the 8452nd UN Security Council meeting held on January 26th, 2019), other countries supporting Juan Guaido include Poland. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.158.111.52 (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, your quote does not express support Guaido as an interim president. As stated before, it recognises him as the leader of the National Assembly. Two entirely different things, and you have failed to provide a source for Poland as well. Sarrotrkux (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

So the part that states "the ONLY democratically elected institution in Venezuela" just went past you, if the only democratic institution in Venezuela is the National Assembly it is a logical conclusion that Maduro is not legitimate. The sources for all the countries mentioned were easy enough to find in the UN media website, which leads me to believe you were just backing your position without any interest to find the truth. The point is moot now that they have backed Guaido directly. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.158.111.52 (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Equatorial Guinea

Equatorial Guinea supports Maduro. See this. --Marval703 (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done @Marval703: That is a political party, not the government.--ZiaLater (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

But it's the goverment's party. The President of Equatorial Guinea (who is also the party's chairman) supports his party. Another source: [29] --Marval703 (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Data for the map

According to this CNN map, Mexicom Uruguay and Portugal are neutral. And Laos is silent:

Los países que reconocen a Guaidó y los que reconocen a Maduro como presidente

--Gustavo Parker (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gustavo Parker: Map is inaccurate. Mexico does recognize Maduro but remains neutral in reagards to the crisis. CNN also marks the Dominican Republic as recognizing Maduro when it instead recognized Guaidó in its OAS statement. This specific CNN source is innaccurate at this time.--ZiaLater (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

And about Laos and Portugal ZiaLater?. What can you say?--Gustavo Parker (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gustavo Parker: Laos source is here (Venezuelan government source). We need a better source than the Venezuelan government. Portugal has only supported the National Assembly as of now.--ZiaLater (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Ukraine

Ukraine supports Guaidó. Source (Spanish). --2A02:AB88:24C1:6300:F567:23AA:F08D:B9C0 19:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Greece

SYRIZA doesn't govern Greece alone, so I would think that the statement from them only represent the party and not the government. So maybe Greece should be removed from the map. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Equatorial Guinea

Source: https://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20190125/46887864/el-partido-gobernante-de-guinea-ecuatorial-expresa-solidaridad-con-maduro.html

And before you say it is just a party, it is the main and ruling party of the country. Even the president is ammeter of that party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teodoro_Obiang_Nguema_Mbasogo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_of_Equatorial_Guinea --Fenetrejones (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I say the same. Here we can see that the party's support it's recognized by President Teodoro Obiang Nguema. I added this information in the Spanish Wikipedia. I think it should be added here. --Marval703 (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done @Fenetrejones: Well, it is still just a party. Let us wait for an official response.--ZiaLater (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Belarus

Belarus officially supports Maduro. [30] --Marval703 (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

But, Biolerrusia has said that it "rejects external interferences in Venezuela", but nowhere does it say that it recognizes Maduro as president. Although, I do not know what others will say.--Gustavo Parker (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

If we have a "light blue" group for states which support the National Assembly, it might make sense to add a "light red/pink" group for countries which reject foreign interference — which we can expect to be the position of many Asian countries, for example? (On the other hand, the standard being applied here is flawed: a country which continues to carry on normal diplomatic relations with Venezuela implicitly "recognizes Maduro" by the very act of maintaining relations! In other words, any country which issues a statement rejecting "outside interference" and calling for a "constitutional solution," etc., should be in red.) Albrecht (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

In fact, president Alexander Lukashenko spoke directly to Maduro to express support. See this. I think it is an official recognition. --Marval703 (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't say non-interventionism means support of Maduro - even you say it means they are looking for a diplomatic solution. You can expect countries who want to remove Maduro but also want to stay out of the whole situation will call for diplomacy, encourage other nations to stay out of it, too, and be done. Kingsif (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

In the context of an un-elected official being unilaterally recognized as president by a group of foreign powers, non-interventionism absolutely equals support for the existing government. Come on . . . Albrecht (talk)

In the context of a lower elected head asserting his claim to a role he would ascend to in certain situations, and in the face of a "dictator" that many nations already don't have explicit relationships with, non-interventionism is very much "I'm staying out of this and support neither" Kingsif (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

"in certain situations": which does not include an auto-proclamation by fiat, hence the calls to respect the "constitutional process" (an implicit rejection of the Lima Group's recognition.) Stop muddying the waters: denouncing interventionism frames Guaido's installation as president as an act of foreign intervention. We can agree or disagree with this interpretation of events, but these are patently not simple statements of neutrality. Albrecht (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Light blue

@ZiaLater: I commend you for the edit showing countries supporting the National Assembly in light blue, but I fear this now comes late. Spain, France and Germany have all three gone a step further and have issued ultimatums to Maduro. While it is not full recognition now, they will do so in eight days if no election is called, so this is now different than their previous 'shy support' and the stances of other EU countries. Impru20 (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Impru20: I feel like going this route would violate WP:CRYSTALBALL in a sense. I understand that it is not longer "shy support", but maybe we can wait eight days.--ZiaLater (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Bélarus

Lukashenko called Maduro supporting him

https://twitter.com/nicolasmaduro/status/1088987918616666112?s=21 — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 103.70.152.5 (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

A direct telephone call between two heads of state is virtually the highest form recognition can take. Belarus should definitely be added to the map. Albrecht (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Link from site of president of Belarus: http://president.gov.by/en/news_en/view/telephone-conversation-with-venezuela-president-nicolas-maduro-20369/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexWelens (talk • contribs) 10:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Ultimatum of the European Union

Spain, France, Germany, Denmark and United Kingdom have announced they have announced that if in 8 days Maduro does not call elections, they will recognize Guaidó as interim president:

UE da ocho días a Maduro para convocar elecciones en Venezuela

Do not stop watching the news.

And by the way, Switzerland also supports the National Assembly [31].

--Gustavo Parker (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done with Switzerland --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Antigua and Barbuda - red for Maduro?

"Antigua and Barbuda labeling the U.S. recognition of opposition leader Juan Guaidó as president over Nicolás Maduro "a brazen regime change."

"The majority of countries that are in Caricom do not accept Juan Guaidó as the interim president," Antigua Prime Minister Gaston Browne told the Miami Herald, referring to the 15-member Caribbean Community. "In fact, we believe that it is an extremely dangerous precedent ... which has absolutely no basis in law, it has no constitutional backing, it has no support of international law, and it's really an affront to democracy within the hemisphere.""[32] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

No where in those quotes do I see Maduro support. They're non-interventionist, perhaps Maduro-leaning. There's a conflict in the Caribbean between Maduro and European loyalties, so those affiliated to France or UK are unlikely to give something concrete. Kingsif (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: 6 distinct color options

To a accurately reflect the positions of many countries we need to have the following options: 1) supporting Maduro, 2) lighter similar color for non interference (which is in a way supporting Maduro) 3) supporting Guaidó, 4) lighter similar color for supporting the National Assembly (which is on a way supporting Guaidó) 5) Venezuela in black 6) countries that didn’t announce a position. Your thoughts? Bohbye (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bohbye: Asking for non-intervention is not supporting Maduro or even leaning towards that. Non-intervention has more to do with sentiments about the U.S. government and other nations who have taken a more involved approach. Many of the non-intervention statements state that Venezuelans should handle the situation on their own. Could this mean the call for new elections? Could this mean that they support the protests? We cannot make the decision on what that means as it would be original research. Political talk is complex. The colors used as of now are fine, though a new color for Venezuela could be proposed.--ZiaLater (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Abkhazia and South Ossetia

Is it possible to add them to the map given that they both support Maduro while Georgia supports Guaidó. ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

No. Because there are no such countries.--93.78.127.104 00:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Venezuela in yellow?

Someone in a previous version had colored Venezuela in yellow, one of the flag color, a neutral one between blue and red used for faction, and a way more distinct one compared to the black which isn't this different from the dark blue. It was a good idea, imo. Could you please keep it? --2A01:E0A:8E:A1C0:E027:6F53:AB57:94F9 00:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Switzerland

Has not taken sides

It keeps being reverted with the Bénédict de Cerjat tweet taken as source but the Swiss MFA has not officially taken sides

https://twitter.com/eda_dfae/status/1088752224778506241?s=21 (Français)

https://twitter.com/swissmfa/status/1088761587790475265?s=21 (Anglais)

Bénédict de Cerjat has retweeted this as well. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 103.70.152.5 (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Holy See

Holy See still maintains diplomatic relations with Venezuela. As the link says, the Holy See still have diplomatic relations with Maduro's governement. The statement of the spokesman Alessandro Gisotti did not clarify if the Holy See recognizes the proclamation of the opposition leader Juan Guaidó as president in charge however, diplomatic relations with President Maduro will continue that means that the Vatican recognizes the Maduro's government as the one that has the power (still). The indicator should be red. --Miguu (talk) 05:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done @Miguu: See here.--ZiaLater (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Serbia and India

Serbia and India should be in Red. https://www.urdupoint.com/en/world/serbia-will-not-recognize-guaido-as-venezuela-540044.html https://thewire.in/diplomacy/india-backs-nicolas-maduro-refuses-to-recognise-guaido-as-venezuelas-interim-president --WikiNameBaks (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I think there's a consensus here that not recognizing Guaidó is not the same as recognizing Maduro. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ahmedo Semsurî: You are correct.--ZiaLater (talk) 12:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

What is going on with the map ? Biased editing ?

Bélarus is not coloured red even though Lukashenko, the Président called Maduro

Suisse is coloured light blue even though it's MAE has explicitly said that it does not recognise any government but only states

Guinée équatoriale is not coloured red because the ruling party making a statement in the name of the Président is not 'official' enough

Serbie not coloured red even though Vučić himself said he will not recognise Guaidó — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 103.70.152.5 (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Switzerland has described the Assembly as legitimate[33]. I agree that Belarus should be re-colored to red. Concerning Serbia, its more of a neutral stance than a support for Maduro. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The same guy, has retweeted a Tweet (at a later stage) from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland, which has said it is neutral. https://twitter.com/SwissMFA/status/1088761587790475265 https://twitter.com/EDA_DFAE/status/1088752224778506241 The official statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should take precedence over that of the Head of the Americas division of it. Also, you do not mention Guinée équatoriale — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 103.70.152.5 (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Belarus and Switzerland have been updated.--ZiaLater (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Israel

Israel has recognized 'the new leadership in Venezuela' [34]. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Israeli media state that Israel has recognized Guaidó[35][36]. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC) Israel ha reconocido a Guaidó https://twitter.com/venepress/status/1089543021996228608 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perales123 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Recognized Guaidó. References: Infobae. El País de España. El Universal. Reuters. La Tercera. Saludos. 200.104.221.126 01:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done --ZiaLater (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Circles

I think that some countries like Kuwait, Qatar, Kosovo, Cyprus, Palestine, Bahamas, Jamaica, Nauru and the island countries of southern Puerto Rico do not need circles to be noticed. Or at least the first 7 countries that I mentioned.--Gustavo Parker (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that Puerto Rico and Trinidad and Tobago do not need circles either.--Gustavo Parker (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan

Recolor Taiwan to light blue. -- Theasiancowboy (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Done --cyrfaw (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan should be colored red because MOST UN member states recognize the PRC ONLY. Note that Crimea is colored as part of Ukraine although Crimea is under de facto Russian control, so why shouldn't Taiwan be colored as part of the PRC??? --59.66.60.251 06:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC, light red for those who have not denounced Maduro?

Should countries who have relations with Maduro and have not denounced him be colored in light red?

Such as India, Arab League, and countries with ambiguous statements like Serbia. Jim7049 (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Countries that have relations with Venezuela but don't denounce him include Belarus, India and Belize. Also, Armenia is also refusing to denounce Maduro and calling for a peaceful dialogue despite Armenia's neighbors such as Iran and Russia supporting Maduro. --cyrfaw (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: No. The countries are more focused on non-intervention than recognizing Maduro. They say that they want the people of Venezuela to fix the crisis on their own.--ZiaLater (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Norway

Norway do not recognize Guaido, it is still neutral. [37]--Sakiv (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Equatorial Guinea and Kuwait

The UN Security council voted to discuss the Venezuela Crisis. The no votes were for Maduro and the Yes votes were Guaido. Source:https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/01/pompeo-calls-countries-pick-side-venezuela-crisis-190126145151510.html All the others have been colored in but because of this Equatorial Guinea should be red and Kuwait should be Light blue --Fenetrejones (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Fenetrejones: Pompeo does not get to decide who it with or against Guaidó or Maduro. Equatorial Guinea could have voted "no" for a number of reasons.--ZiaLater (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Uruguay and Mexico

In the map Uruguay is blue, and the Mexico is red. But we don't have sources about those countries. 73.158.103.169 19:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Neutral countries

We have to add new color - neutral countries. 73.158.103.169 19:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Not recognizing any leader or body of government is the same as not answering at all. They have no official position.--ZiaLater (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Not recognizing Guaidó ≠ Recognizing Maduro

Just because a nation does not recognize Guiadó does not mean they recognize Maduro. It is the same with Maduro, initially the EU stated that they did not recognize Maduro and users assumed that they supported Guaidó, but we now know that is not the case. Like the EU, other countries can decide not to recognize one leader and also choose not to recognize the other leader. As explained before, political speak is difficult to interpret and we should not be interpreting anything as that would be WP:OR. I hope this explanation answers some questions. Thanks for the great discussions and keeping this talk page relatively peaceful.--ZiaLater (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Equatorial Guinea

Source:https://africatimes.com/2019/01/27/un-security-councils-african-members-support-venezuelas-maduro/ --Fenetrejones (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

 Finally done @Fenetrejones: --ZiaLater (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

North Korea and Laos

DPRK:https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2019/01/28/North-Korea-throws-support-behind-Venezuelas-Maduro-regime/3891548692065/

Lao PDR: http://www.minci.gob.ve/viceministro-para-asia-medio-oriente-y-oceania-recibio-a-embajadora-designada-por-la-republica-popular-lao/

http://mppre.gob.ve/2019/01/23/republica-democratica-popular-lao/

--Fenetrejones (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done @Fenetrejones: --ZiaLater (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Italy / Switzerland / Greece

Neither have an official position so far

Italy’s government is split on the issue. The statement from the President of the council does not mention any support for the National or Constituent Assembly : https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2019/01/26/venezuela-governo-diviso-sullultimatum-dellue-conte-si-al-voto-subito-ma-no-a-interventi-impositivi-di-altri-paesi/4925859/

Switzerland’s ministry of foreign affairs tweeted this (after the Bénédict de Cerjat tweet used as source for their position) and BdC retweeted this as well : https://twitter.com/swissmfa/status/1088761587790475265

Greece’s ruling party supports Maduro, cannot find any official statement for the government but it would be weird if they supported the National Assembly — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 103.70.152.5 (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

All member nations of the EU signed a joint declaration showing support for the National Assembly and for Maduro to hold elections in the coming days.--ZiaLater (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Switzerland is not part of the EU regardless — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 103.70.152.5 (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Luxembourg should be colored light-blue as well then. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Morocco

So Morocco and Venezuela haven't had diplomatic relationssince 2009 due to the SADR issue. I was therefore wondering if it is accurate to have Morocco as grey, since it per say isn't neutral. I'm not advocating to color the country red, but maybe a unique color? What do you think? [38] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe a darker shade of grey? --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

"Does not support Guaido as President"

There are a lot of countries out there that have not specifically said that they support Maduro, but have said that they "do not support Guaido as President". Perhaps add a color for them on the map? Pink or purple, for example? It has been stated here that not supporting Guaido is not the same as supporting Maduro, so we ought to add a new color for these countries. Judging by this map, it looks as if these countries in white have not said anything about the crisis, even though they did, they have a position, and that is why I believe a new color should be added. --WikiNameBaks (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Venezuela in yellow?

Would it make sense to switch Venezuela to yellow? Black disappears next to the blue colors and yellow is a color of the National flag. Your thoughts? Bohbye (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Calling again to reflect “Vocal neutrality”

That list you can see on enwiki is important or reflect the current status of the international response. Those countries represent almost two billion people. Don’t ignore that! Bohbye (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Morocco

source:https://www.lorientlejour.com/article/1155036/venezuela-le-maroc-apporte-son-soutien-au-president-autoproclame-juan-guaido.html Apparently Belarus should go blank, according to User:Kingsif, What do you think Zia? --Fenetrejones (talk) 2:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Do not delete Belarus. The Belarusian Telegraphic Agency (state owned media) has confirmed what Maduro tweeted that Lukashenko called 'Venezuelan President Maduro' assuring him of support. They 'reject any external interference with the domestic affairs' of the 'friendly country of Venezuela'. This is a staunch support for Maduro. On a side note: pretty much every single country is calling for a peaceful settlement of the situation. They might have different desires as to the final outcome, but no only is actively wishing for war. https://eng.belta.by/president/view/lukashenko-calls-for-peaceful-settlement-in-venezuela-118231-2019JoyceJonathan2 (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think Belarus should stay red as it is.--Fenetrejones (talk) 3:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Now that Crimea is red due to Russian occupation, the parts of Western Sahara that are controlled by Rabat should be dark blue as well. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Marruecos

Marruecos reconoce a Guaidó http://www.el-nacional.com/noticias/mundo/marruecos-dio-apoyo-juan-guaido-aplaudio-sus-acciones_268666

Además plantean volver a tener relaciones diplomáticas http://www.el-nacional.com/noticias/mundo/guaido-ofrecio-relanzar-relaciones-sobre-bases-serenas-con-marruecos_268655 — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.93.106.76 (talk) 06:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Identity of the Pacific Map Circles (title changed)

The three small circles souhthwest of Hawaii depict U.S. minor outlying islands. Notwithstanding the base map’s inconsistency with respect to islands shown or not, all UN member states, and territories (the term being used broadly) of France, UK, USA, Australia and New Zealand are otherwise accounted for. The map presently shows UK’s Pitcairn Island and French Polynesia as light blue (see the left side of the map in the South Pacific). As US possessions, these three small circles (two on the left map border and one on the right) should be colored. The significant island possessions of Chile, Japan, and China are not shown on the base map. 7o62x39 (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Two of those are parts of Kiribati and the most southern one is the Cook Islands (NZ). --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The Cook Islands are depicted as the large gray circle at the far left of the map west of French Polynesia (light Blue) and American Samoa on the map’s right edge (dark Blue). Starting in the West, the six gray circles are Palau, Micronesia, Nauru, Marshall Islands, Vanuatu, and Tuvalu before arriving at light Blue Wallis & Futuna (France). To the south, Solomon Islands, New Caledonia and Fiji are geometric shapes not circles. The three gray circles south and east of Wallis are Samoa, Tonga, and Niue. American Samoa is in dark blue. North of American Samoa we have one large gray circle and the three mysterious small gray circles.

Tokelau is the next territory north which would be the large circle if Tokelau is depicted. Then Kiribati could be the three small circles, which is weird, because Kiribati is a UN member state and has five island groups. This would leave the US Minor Outlying Islands absent.

The map is very bad and inconsistent. I much prefer a blank map that is more careful with the use of large and small circles with large being for nations and small for territories and possessions. But then some of the French Indian Ocean islands are unitary parts of the French Republic and some of the British islands are not part of the UK but are Crown Possessions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7o62x39 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Correction to my previous comments. Vanuatu is shown in very hard to see small shapes just north of New Caledonia. This would leave the 5th large circle unidentified. I think this 5th large circle is Kiribati as the Gilbert Islands and the three small circles represent the other Kiribati island groups to the east. The large circle north of American Samoa, in dark blue, is Tokelau (New Zealand). The US Minor Outlying Islands are not shown. 7o62x39 (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The map identifies the circles when you move your touchpad mouse towards it [39] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Namibia

Namibia has voiced support for Maduro http://www.mirco.gov.na/documents/140810/673389/MEDIA+RELEASE+-+NAMIBIA+POSITION+ON+VENEZUELA/e989db0c-ce0a-4dc6-b23f-b2b0f22219fe 91.187.93.147 11:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Maduro is not even mentioned. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Unión Europea

El parlamento Europeo reconoce a Guaidó por abrumadora mayoría

https://elpais.com/internacional/2019/01/31/actualidad/1548936555_739483.html https://www.abc.es/internacional/abci-parlamento-europeo-reconoce-guaido-como-presidente-201901310827_noticia.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perales123 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistent duplicate

Hi all, Why is there a duplicate map, File:Venezuela president recognition map 2019-.svg, that additionally is inconsistent with the map here concerning the coloring (dark and sky blue here should match green there, and red should match between both maps). Such a map should be factual and therefore, for me, there should not be two maps, even less two conflicting maps. SenseiAC (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@SenseiAC: It was created by other users based off of this map. It has not been updated regularly and does not have many discussions regarding its accuracy. What are your suggestions?--ZiaLater (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Italy

Italy does not recognize that Juan Guaidó is interim president of Venezuela:

Italia desconocerá a Juan Guaidó como presidente interino del país

--Gustavo Parker (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Kosovo, South Ossetia, Abkhazia

Why is there a Kosovo on this map, but no Abkhazia or South Ossetia? Who makes these decisions? Why should Kosovo be here, and Abkhazia shouldn't? --WikiNameBaks (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

España, Francia y Suecia

España, Francia y Suecia reconocen a Guaidó https://twitter.com/EFEnoticias/status/1092348433028075521 https://twitter.com/EFEnoticias/status/1092341753456275456 https://twitter.com/EFEnoticias/status/1092339145740087296 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perales123 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom has recognised Guaido as interim President. [1][2]--Duncanza (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

There are also a number of French territories that are coloured light blue and need to be updated.--Duncanza (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Austria

Presidente de Austria reconoce a Guaidó

https://twitter.com/sebastiankurz/status/1092350419601375233 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perales123 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Letonia

https://twitter.com/edgarsrinkevics/status/1092356623585157120 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perales123 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

EU countries

So now that there is no EU state (besides the EU organisation itself) supporting the National Assembly (France, Germany, etc are recognising Guaidó outright), I propose we remove the blue colour from all the EU countries which haven’t stated an official position, are remaining neutral (Italy), or support Maduro (Greece).

Otherwise if the light blue is to represent the entire EU then France, Germany, etc should also be coloured light blue (not too accurate I think)

Also Switzerland is not part of the EU and is neutral so that blue should be removed too — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 103.70.152.5 (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC) 103.70.152.5 13:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Switzerland is not light-blue because of EU, but because they've stated they recognize the Assembly. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Source? Other than that Bénédict de Cerjat guy’s tweet (since he retweeted a neutral tweet later)103.70.152.5 15:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hungary's position

An a couple of days old statement from the Hungarian government seems to allude that Hungary recognizes Guaidó as president: "Accordingly it was agreed that President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro must resign from office immediately, and the countries of Europe must recognise Juan Guaidó as interim president."[40]. Should we color Hungary blue? --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hungary should also be blue

According to the page --Fenetrejones (talk) 3:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Venezuela color

I think that Venezuela need to be yellow and not black because is sorrunded by blue countrys and it's difficult to distinguish it. --Yacine Boussoufa (Scrivimi!) 17:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yacine Boussoufa (talk • contribs) 17:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree.--Aréat (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Slovak statement

Not sure if we should color Slovakia blue, but they have commented on the issue: "Slovakia, as a part of the EU and the democratic world, sees the National Assembly led by Juan Guaido as a legitimate body of democratically elected representatives of the Venezuelan people. Slovakia therefore supports the statements by the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini of full EU support to the Venezuelan National Assembly and its President Juan Guaido,"[41]. The question is whether they consider Guaidó President of Venezuela or only the Assembly? --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ahmedo Semsurî: Slovakia is currently light blue, representing that it supports the National Assembly. It seems like this should still be the accurate color.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Neutral countries

A darker grey has been used to show neutral countries who have made statements. This is the color:      Let me know if you agree with this edit since we are now seeing the number of countries who have not made statements become smaller.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

You colored Guyana light blue instead of dark grey. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I would presume it should be light blue as it had voted along Lima Group in OAS, if Guyana is not light blue so does St Lucia then.(which now is light blue)--WeifengYang (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Greece, Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uruguay

All four of them seem to support Maduro.

this map also seems to indicate their support
ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@ParadiseDesertOasis8888: Not the case. Mexico and Uruguay are remaining neutral so they can support dialogue. Greece does not know what to do because of the EU. Trinidad and Tobago does not know what to do either.--ZiaLater (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: I guess you're correct about Mexico and Uruguay given that they are organizing a meeting for neutral countries, but the linked article for Trinidad and Tobago still states that "Trinidad and Tobago has recognised Nicolas Maduro as the elected President of the Bolivarian Republic" and this BBC map shows Greece as recognizing Maduro. ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@ParadiseDesertOasis8888: The article for Trinidad and Tobago says that they're "neutral" but "recognize Maduro". Does not sound like they are sure of themselves because they have backtracked on some declarations too. As for Greece, some of the media says they support Maduro because of a Syriza document, but there has been no official declaration by Greece except for their joint statement with the EU supporting the National Assembly. See this source for Greece.--ZiaLater (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: To my knowledge, Trinidad and Tobago has yet to rescind it's recognition of Maduro. It sounds like it's only neutral in the sense that it doesn't want any armed conflict to arise from the situation, but it still recognizes Maduro as president. ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaontiveros (talk • contribs) 04:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Mexico has always recognized presidente Maduro

The current government of Mexico has always recognized Nicolás Maduro as president of Venezuela. Mexico's neutrality is with respect to the nonintervention or interference of its internal affairs:

• The López Obrador government said it recognizes President Maduro as "democratically" elected from Venezuela.
• Mexico still recognizes Maduro as legitimate president of Venezuela.

Regards. Jaontiveros (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Neutral countries, gray color

The gray color is very depressing, could we change it? For example, green: any shade of green.--Gustavo Parker (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Kinda fits with their stance. Neutral is a gray zone. Bohbye (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not understand you Bohbye.--Gustavo Parker (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Italy, Ireland

Please colour Italy and Ireland as grey. The EU's position does not supersede the individual country's position. Otherwise would you colour the countries that have recognised Guaidó as president as light blue as well? 103.70.152.5 05:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Armenia

Guys please take Armenia off the list. It is one of the neutral countries as you can see here.----Երևանցի ^talk 06:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Montenegro

Please update Montenegro recognition: http://www.mvp.gov.me/en/news/195924/Montenegro-supports-the-position-of-European-partners-on-the-need-for-holding-free-and-democratic-elections-in-Venezuela.html --WeifengYang (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Romania

I'm not sure who or how we can edit the map but Romania has recognized Guaidó as president [42] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Crimea discussions

Crimea

Crimea is recognized as Ukrainian territory and shouldn't be colored red as Russia. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Then, Kosovo should be a part of Serbia on the map. --WikiNameBaks (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Crimea 2

@Ahmedo Semsurî: Who calls the shots regarding Crimea? It is de facto part of Russian Federation since the past 5 years. US not recognizing it does not mean it doesn't exist. Are you going to remove Armenia from a map too if US doesn't recognize it like you've said in your revert? The map should display de facto regions, it already displays Kosovo etc.

The template was possibly made less than 5 years ago since it doesn't show it as Russia. Jim7049 (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Why are you even mentioning America? Which country recognizes Crimea as Russia other than Russia? It's part of Ukraine according to international law (UNGA 68/282). Removing Kosovo would be more accurate than showing Crimea as part of Russia (or lets say the Palestinian Territories as of Israel). --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Here are the countries recognizing Crimea as Russia: [43]. The UN doesn't recognize Kosovo fully or Palestine nor does UN fully recognize Israel or China or Taiwan. Why should all these be included but not Russia? The reason it is included as Ukraine in template is because it was made before 2014, possibly in 2008 or so. I will go ahead and include it as Russia now, it is de facto Russia. Jim7049 (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

If you really want Crimea as part of Russia in the map, you should at least mark it with a lighter red color. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Crimea's not part of Russia, though, its citizens and government are Ukrainian, why is this even a discussion? Kingsif (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: "Crimea's not part of Russia, though, its citizens and government are Ukrainian" I'm sorry but this is false, even if you don't recognize Crimea as Russia what you just said is a blatant lie. Neither it's government nor its citizens are Ukrainian. I assume you are aware of the [44] annexation are you not? Jim7049 (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree fully. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

According to the international law, Crimea is Ukraine. In the same way you do not mark West Bank & Gaza as Israel, Karabakh as Armenia, and North Cyprus as Turkey. It should be colored the same way as Ukraine.188.100.69.205 22:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Crimea is Ukraine. --Magistrvp (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

According to the international law, kosovo is a part of Serbia, and yet, it is a separate entity on this map. --WikiNameBaks (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC) Fully agree. If the map shows the de jure situation, then Kosovo should remain as part of Serbia. According to the international law, there is no sovereign country called "Kosovo".59.66.60.251 10:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Crimea 2.5

I do not understand why Crimea is still colored red. The Ukrainian government supports Guaido, so why the Crimea should be red? If this is due to the Russian occupation, then parts of Georgia (South Ossetia & Abkhazia) and People Republics of Donetsk & Luhansk should also be red. Please make the coloring consistent.88.74.27.90 00:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Please update the layer for Ukraine to include Crimea, according to internationally recognized borders, and, as such, make sure the Crimean peninsula is painted blue. Pages that link to this image refer to it as to 'Countries supporting' or 'Countries recognizing', so keeping the country borders correct is very important. SlimJack43 (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

If Crimea is a part of Ukraine, then Kosovo ought to be a part of Serbia on this map. Plain and simple. --WikiNameBaks (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Crimea 3

I don't understand why Crimea is colored red and considered to be Russian. Very few countries (<10) recognize Crimea as part of Russia. We should follow the international consensus here and paint Crimea in blue since de jure Crimea is Ukraine. Otherwise, we will have to color Palestine as Israel, North Cyprus & Abkhazia &South Ossetia as independent countries and so on. Kosovo is considered an independent country since the majority of UN countries recognizes its independence. 46.39.46.109 18:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Crimea is part of Ukraine and the guy who vandalizes the map has been reported. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Relax, the Crimea is colored in blue on he map now... Although, I think to color the Crimea in blue is a bad idea. Crimea is part of Ukraine only de-jure and only because according to international law. As stated above, "neither Crimea's government nor its citizens are Ukrainian". The Crimea is part of Russia de-facto the past 5 years. Crimea uses Russian rouble, uses Moscow Time (UTC+3 annual) and the majority of people (98%) used Russian language. Crimea is economically is Russia! As my opinion, Crimea is less ukrainian now than the South Kuril islands is Japan. --Brateevsky {talk} 07:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The argument about language is absolutely inappropriate. Nearly 100% of Brazilians use Portuguese language, nearly 100% of Irish people use English language; should we now paint Brazil as Portugal and Ireland as England? Other arguments supports the claim that Crimea (as of now) is de facto part of Russia. This claim is correct. However the map does not represent the current de facto state of things (otherwise as explained below you would also have to put, for example, ISIS on the map). The map represents borders between states according to the international law. Since the majority of the UN states supports territorial integrity of Ukraine, the Crimea (as well as People's republics of Donetsk and Luhansk) should be considered as part of Ukraine in this map. Evgeny smirnov (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Crimea - Final discussion

I want there to be a definitive decision regarding the color of Crimea:

• Red– part of Russia
• Blue – part of Ukraine
• Gray – neutral due to the dispute of territory

There are arguments for both cases and you can share your opinions below. To maintain up-to-date accuracy, this decision-making process will last only 7 days following this post and the current color of Crimea will stay in its current form (blue) until then.

I am pinging previously invovled users to voice their ideas below. Please include an explanation with your decision. @Ahmedo Semsurî: @Brateevsky: @Jaontiveros: @Gustavo Parker: @WeifengYang: @Yerevantsi: @Bohbye: @ParadiseDesertOasis8888: @Aréat: @Yacine Boussoufa: @Fenetrejones: @Perales123: @Duncanza: @SenseiAC: @AlexWelens: @SlimJack43: @Magistrvp: @7o62x39: @JoyceJonathan2: @ProtoplasmaKid: @Sakiv: @AlexCovarrubias: @Sarrotrkux: @Cyfraw: @Theasiancowboy: @Miguu: @Poklane: @Kingsif: @Albrecht: @Marval703: @Impru20:

Please stay friendly in this decision process.--ZiaLater (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 Neutral --Aréat (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Red - AlexWelens (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@AlexWelens: Please provide an explanation if possible. If not, your position may not be recognized.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

As citizen of Russia, I consider Crimea as part of Russia, de-jure and de-facto. This fact is written in the constitution of Russia. So I keep it up. And personally I don't care if people from other countries recognize this or not. AlexWelens (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Red: Crimea is administered by Russia as the Republic of Crimea. While it is internationally recognized as being a part of Ukraine, it is currently controlled by Russia so the Russian stance reflects that of the peninsula. Agence France-Presse has also counted Crimea as being a part of Russia in its map. ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

AFP argument is invalid, since their opinion of international borders is not authoritative. Also Bloomberg, BBC, Fox News correctly display borders, so what ? SlimJack43 (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@SlimJack43: The Agence France-Presse map was just an example, not an argument. ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Gray: Ya que se trata de una zona en disputa, debe mantenerse neutral hasta tanto se resuelva la situación de Crimea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perales123 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

"It is presently treated as a disputed area, it should remain neutral until the situation in Crimea is resolved" Translated comment Kingsif (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blue: According to international law, Crimea is a part of Ukraine. The fact that currently it is unlawfully annexed by Russia does not change internationally recognized borders. Multiple United Nations resolutions were adopted (A/RES/68/262, A/RES/73/263, A/RES/73/194, A/RES/72/190, A/RES/71/205), with overwhelming international support of Ukraine and condemnation of illegal Russian actions. As this file is used across the Wikipedia in articles that list countries and not territories, internationally recognized borders of countries should be used. We do not mark separately any ISIS/Kurdish-controlled territory in Syria, or Boko Haram-controlled territory in Nigeria/Niger, or Al-Qaeda-controlled territories in Yemen, or Taliban-controlled territory in Afghanistan, thus we should not mark separately Russia-controlled Crimea. SlimJack43 (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Russia is a country, not a terrorist organization, and unlike any of the examples you listed, Crimea has been recognized as being a Russian territory by some countries. It was unlawfully annexed, but that doesn't change that it is currently controlled by Russia, so I think that the map would be more accurate if Crimea were red. ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Taliban is not a terrorist organizations either, so? The fact that some countries recognize something does not make this something true or obligatory for others. What matters is the UN, not Russia, is an authoritative body of international relations, and there is not a single decision that supports Russia in their claims. Vast minority cannot enforce its views on vast majority. SlimJack43 (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@SlimJack43: I'm not trying to argue that Crimea is a part of Russia. What I'm trying to say is that Russia currently occupies the peninsula, so this map would be most accurate if it were red. ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Taliban or Boko Haram examples are not 100% relevant here. A more related example is Abkhazia/South Ossetia. These countries are also recognized by some (very few) UN members including Venezuela itself. Does it mean that "the map would be more accurate" if we color them red as well (since both of them supports Maduro)? What to do then with North Cyprus? Karabakh? Transnistria? Evgeny smirnov (talk)

@Evgeny smirnov: I do think it would be more accurate if they were colored differently given that they are partially recognized and they control the territory that they claim. Even though they aren't recognized under international law, I think that it works best for this map to count them as separate states. ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@ParadiseDesertOasis8888: There are multiple ongoing territorial disputes w:List of territorial disputes, it makes no sense to highlight all of these. Established and recognized international borders should be used unless the article specifically talks about particular dispute. SlimJack43 (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blue: I fully support @SlimJack43: . The only possible rebuttal of this argument is perhaps that of Kosovo and Taiwan, in which international recognition is not full. Though I think that this can be remedied by the fact that both government had made official statement regarding this dispute, so showing them would be helpful. Such is not really the case for Crimea as an independent territory, for which the position of the current government administering Crimea is the Russian government, not an independent territory.--WeifengYang (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Blue --Magistrvp (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  You and your country lost the Crimea. Decisively. =) --Brateevsky {talk} 17:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Magistrvp: Please provide an explanation if possible. If not, your position may not be recognized.--ZiaLater (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blue Recognized by international law as being part of Ukraine and illegal occupation does not change that. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Blue The map should be consistent. It represents the de jure state of things rather than de facto state of things. Since Abkhazia and North Cyprus are colored as Georgia and Cyprus, respectively (despite de facto independence and recognition by at least 1 UN state), Crimea should be considered as part of Ukraine. Kosovo and Palestine are recognized by more than 100 UN states, thus it makes perfect sense to put them on the map as separate entities. Since Crimea is recognized as Russian by only 21 UN state (tiny minority of UN states), it should appear on this map as Ukraine. Evgeny smirnov (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Red, of course, as I mentioned above. Although this is not a question of only this page. Crimea is actually Russian region in the full sense — it uses Russian language, Russian currency, Russian timezone (UTC+3 annual), and Crimean people consider themselves as Russians. "According to international law" — well, first, 21 UN state considered Crimea as part of Russia; second — this consideration may change during some time (and not to the side of Ukraine, of course). --Brateevsky {talk} 17:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  21 UN states is a tiny minority (10%) of all UN states (193). All the other countries (172) do not recognize Crimea as part of Russia. Since you are not Nostradamus, you cannot be absolutely sure whether Crimea be recognized by more or less countries in the future. Currently the vast majority considers Crimea to be Ukranian. If one day the majority recognizes Crimea as part of Russia (or as part of Turkey, or as part of Zimbabwe), then this map should be repainted. By the way, Peoples Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk also use "Russian language, Russian currency, Russian timezone" - should we also put these "Republics" on the map, according to your logic? Evgeny smirnov (talk)

  We (Russia) don't recognize this "problem" (russian - проблемные) "republics" of Ukraine. No one state in the world recognize DPR and LPR as independent states! You should know and understand this (as russian-speaking person; I don't know what country are you from). And we don't participate in Donbass war (as a state) and don't fight for them. It's a usual civil war in Ukraine. --Brateevsky {talk} 18:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  I am also from Russia and live in Moscow (apparently, we are neighbors: I am from Veshnyaki area, not too far from Brateevo). Your claim that Russia ("we") does not participate in the Donbass war is absurd - there is an abundance of evidence of Russian army's involvement into that war (start, for example by reading the corresponding wiki-page). Try to watch less Russian propaganda TV channels and use independent sources.Evgeny smirnov (talk)

• Blue because the vast majority of UN member states recognize Crimea as part of of Ukraine and because the general consensus is that the annexation was a violation of international law.--Poklane (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Red: Crimea is a part of Russia and we have to recognize it regardless of what the United Nations sees.--Sakiv (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blue: According to international law, Crimea is a part of Ukraine. Annexation does not equal to ownership by Russia Bohbye (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Red:Maps should be based on facts rather than opinions. Or recognition of westerns. Jim7049 (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: But "easterns" (India, China, Japan, Thailand etc) also do not recognize Crimea as part of Russia. It is not east vs west here. Currently Crimea is considered Russian only by such titans of human rights and democracy as North Korea, Syria, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Myanmar, etc (+15 more titans). Are not you worried that you are in the same club with these wonderful countries? Evgeny smirnov (talk)

@Evgeny smirnov: Maps should be based on facts rather than opinions. Jim7049 (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: Would you then according to this logic support mapping Israeli-occupied Golan heights as Israel (and not as Syria)? Evgeny smirnov (talk)

Yes. Jim7049 (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Gray disputed area --Чорний Кіт (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blue It is Ukrainian territory, that Russia annexed in 2014. World doesn't support this fascist act and doesn't recognise Crimea as Russian territory.--Viiictorrr (talk) 07:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• Blue internationally recognised territory so it's obvious. --Goo3 (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• Blue: Crimea is internationally recognised as the terriotory of Ukraine (by the UN, and by the vast majority of its 200+ members). There are only 21 countries that recognize Crimea's annexation by Russia as lawful (per Political_status_of_Crimea#Recognition_of_Crimea_as_a_part_of_Russia_and_other_pro-Russian_stances_on_Crimea), which is vastly smaller numbers than those who don't (200+).--Piznajko (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• Blue russia occupied Crimea in 2014 same as Nazi occupied Czechoslovakia, Poland, Greece, France and other countries in 1938 - 1940. --Долинський --Долинський (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• Since this discussion apparently turned into a competition who can canvass more users from other projects example I propose to close it without an outcome--Ymblanter (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Ymblanter: Any other users canvassing?--ZiaLater (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  I do not know, but sudden appearance on this talk page a large number of users who have strong opinions about the subject (which has nothing to do with Venezuela, and which has been previously discussed on Commons many times) can not really be accidental, no?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Ymblanter: Using the duck test, I would have to agree with you. May have to close this early without recognizing the edits that have been performed within one hour of each other by apparent SPAs. Other accounts appear to be genuinely involved.--ZiaLater (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Ymblanter: @ForestGreen: I wouldn't call canvassing telling 1 person in enwiki about this discussion - I didn't encourage the person to express certain opinion, I just informed the person about the discussion.--Piznajko (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  Well, you perfectly knew what opinion this person has. This is canvassing.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blue. Regardless of one's personal views, this issue should be decided dispassionately based upon international legal standards, with the UN as the final arbiter. Many nations are faced with varying separatist movements and are therefore leery of appearing hypocritical in such matters, as witness Muslim countries' reluctance to recognize Turkish Republish of Northern Cyprus. As long as the UN officially acknowledges Crimea as part of Ukraine, such recognition should be accepted within Wikipedia.    Roman Spinner (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• Blue according to international law. --A1 (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Discussion closed

No consensus has been decided. Users above considered to be single-purpose accounts, those who did not include an explanation, those who have been involved in canvassing and those who provided repsonses the deadline have been excluded from the discussion with a strikethrough being placed on their comments. If there are further concerns regarding the position of Crimea on map files uploaded to Commons, I recommend the prompt opening of a request for comment with the oversight of administrators.

Note: This discussion is concerned only with this file and is not to be recognized in other discussions.

--ZiaLater (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Marshall Islands

The Marshall Islands have recognized Guaidó. [45] ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done @ParadiseDesertOasis8888: --ZiaLater (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

San Marino

Was San Marino added to the map by mistake? I can't find any sources that state it's position. ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done @ParadiseDesertOasis8888: Was removed. --ZiaLater (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

San Marino has indeed commented on the crisis [46] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Since the source was given when San Marino was added to the map, it would have been easier to check history. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ahmedo Semsurî: Thank you! That edit was awhile ago, so I missed the source. --ZiaLater (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Greece and Italy should be neutral

Statement by the EU was not individually ratified by countries to recognize the National Assemly, even if it did both countries have made statements supportive of the Maduro side as well. They should be placed in neutral. Greek Prime Minister stated that they support Maduro[47], and Italy vetoed EU bid to recognize Guadio[48]. Greece and Italy should be marked in grey for speaking supportive of both sides. Jim7049 (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done See this talk page. --ZiaLater (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Small circles in the Pacific Ocean

Should the small circles in the Pacific Ocean be blue? I believe they are United States Minor Outlying Islands. ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

All American territories are colored blue in the map. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@ParadiseDesertOasis8888: If you hover over the opened file, you can see that they are separate territores.--ZiaLater (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Is that only on desktop? I primarily use the mobile website. ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@ParadiseDesertOasis8888: I have not tried it yet on mobile so I am not sure.--ZiaLater (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: That must be the case. Either way, thanks for the information. ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Vocal neutrality for Serbia

I think Serbia should be colored grey given the Foreign Minister's statements [49]. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

India

India seems to support Maduro now.[50] ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

No. This is a claim by a Maduro-loyalist. We will wait for an official statement.--ZiaLater (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Namibia

Since the statement from the Southern African Development Community was made by the president of Namibia, should Namibia be red? ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

No. The official repsonse by Namibia's foreign ministry was a more neutral stance.--ZiaLater (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Italy

Apparently, the Italian Parliament passed a bill recognizing Guaidó as President already yesterday [51]1. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

No, it isn't. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/italy-new-presidential-election-needed-soon-in-venezuela/2019/02/12/f987d1ee-2ec2-11e9-8781-763619f12cb4_story.html?utm_term=.9f241206278f (37.160.79.240 08:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC))

Uruguay

Please someone get Uruguay back to light blue. The link given to put it in red only mention the personal opinion of the Chancellor of Uruguay given during an interview. That's not the official position of Uruguay right now. Tector (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed Uruguay is still a signatory to the International Contact Group document that explicitly call for a new presidential election. To make Uruguay red here will necessitate the same move to Mexico. --WeifengYang (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Slovenia

When reverting map please note on that Slovenia has already officially recognized Guaido, so should be blue https://twitter.com/MZZRS/status/1096035032081334273--WeifengYang (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement from the new president in El Salvador

A more critical statement from the President concerning Maduro.[52] Maybe El Salvador should be removed from the red countries? --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Not yet. He's not the current president and the official position of the country is with Maduro. Maybe when he became president and made a new offical statement we could change the color of El Salvador in the map. Tector (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Micronesia and Palau

Neither of them appear to be colored on the map. ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Fixed They're showing up now, it must've been a delay on my phone. ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Liechtenstein and Moldova

Both of them support the National Assembly[53] ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Norway also supports it, according to the same source. ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Thank you for added Liechtenstein and Norway. Is there a reason you didn't add Moldova? ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 08:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done @ParadiseDesertOasis8888: I missed it like I missed the footnote on the joint declaration you showed us. Thank you. --ZiaLater (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Norway is neutral it does not support any party involved in the crisis.[54]--Sakiv (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sakiv: Norway does support the National Assembly in that joint-declaration as democratically elected, contrary to what Maduro's government states. Norway is strictly neutral in regards to the recognition of who is president.--ZiaLater (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Egypt, Iraq, and Vietnam

@ZiaLater: I added Egypt, Iraq, and Vietnam to the Wikipedia page as they were cited by a website called War On The Rocks as supporting Maduro, so they should be in red on this map. However, the website also provides a map which (in addition to the countries already on this map) has Algeria, Lebanon, Mozambique, Qatar, and Sri Lanka supporting him, but they aren't mentioned in the article. I know that maps in the media from this situation haven't been the most accurate, so I didn't add them to the page. I was wondering what your take is on adding those countries to the list (and to this map) as well or if they should be left gray.

here is the source ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@ParadiseDesertOasis8888: This source does not seem reliable. It even states "Egypt has not declared its official position in Venezuela’s presidential standoff" but they are making a map showing it in support of Maduro. Thanks for trying to keep things updated, though.--ZiaLater (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Map vandalism regarding Crimea again

@ZiaLater: : @Jim7049: appear to vandalize the map regarding Crimea again, this time up the ante by adding Donbass republics. There should be administrative actions — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeifengYang (talk • contribs) 20:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)--WeifengYang (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Other countries supporting Maduro

source:https://www.voanoticias.com/a/gobierno-maduro-credenciales-ante-onu/4800144.html Fenetrejones (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC) :I think we should change these countries to red: "Algeria, Angolam, Antigua y Barbuda, Azerbaiyán, Bangladesh, Barabados, Belice, Bielorrusia, Bolivia, Burundi, Camboya, China, Congo, Cuba, Corea del Norte, Dominica, Egipto, El Salvadoe, Guinea Ecuatorial, Eritrea, Gambia, India, Indonesia, Irán, Kazajstán, Lao, Malasia, Mauritania, Mozambique, Birmania, Namibia, Nicaragua, Paquistán, Filipinas, Rusia, San Vicente y Granadinas, Sri Lanka, Sur Africa, Sudán, Surinam, Siria, Tanzania, Turquía, Uganda, Vietnam y Zimbabwe." --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Or maybe not. We don't know what the meeting was about. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It was about seeking support against "US Aggression"

source:http://www.therepublic.com/2019/02/20/un-united-nations-venezuela/

source:https://www.foxnews.com/world/venezuela-seeks-un-support-against-military-aggression

Fenetrejones (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

This was the meeting and it really was to denounce the USA role: http://webtv.un.org/search/jorge-arreaza-bolivarian-republic-of-venezuela-on-the-situation-in-venezuela-press-conference-22-february-2019/6005949461001/?term=2019-02-22&sort=date Fenetrejones (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Algeria

This article seems to indicate that Algeria supports Maduro. ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

St Lucia and Jamaica

@ZiaLater:  : Reuters report: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-caribbean/trump-dangles-investment-to-caribbean-leaders-who-back-venezuelas-guaido-idUSKCN1R313H Quote: "U.S. President Donald Trump pledged investment in a rare meeting on Friday with five Caribbean leaders who have sided with the United States in backing Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido as head of state, the White House said."

Indicate that these two had shifted from merely recognizing National Assembly to full recognition of Guaido as head of state, need map change --WeifengYang (talk) 04:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

El Salvador 3 October 2019

El Salvador has kicked out Maduro's diplomats and has indicated they're awaiting a new delegation representing Guaido, it's probably time they're changed to blue Poklane (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)