Talk:United States capture Venezuelan president, Nicolás Maduro

Comments

I believe that an article about this topic should be published on Wikinews, as it is bigger news than most of the content we have published in a while. However, I see a couple of issues that need to be addressed:

• Several of the cited sources are paywalled, and that is a problem per WN:CITE.
• The article says, "Legal experts doubt the legality of these actions, saying the strikes are not against 'lawful military targets'." Per WN:NPOV, the article would need to say which legal experts are being quoted as doubting the legality of the actions.

-- Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

which sources are paywalled? in my experience non have a hard pay‐wall. all work fine depending on how you view them. for instance you can just not enable javascript to view some, or you can just read them through their archive link, where the pay “wall” disappears

i agree with the second point, this is from https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpdyvn176lzo near the bottom, so would saying “according to the BBC, […]” restore NPOV? in any case, thank you for your feedback ~2025-44160-09 (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Currently, both of the BBC sources are giving me paywall problems; the New York Times let me read the article just now. The other sources were fine. But this is something you need to be aware of because the reviewer might see it as a problem, notwithstanding that there may be ways to work around the paywall. As to the second point, the article now says, "According to the BBC, legal experts doubt the legality of these actions, saying the strikes are not against 'lawful military targets'." Did the BBC specify any legal experts (by name or description) in the article you are citing? If not, so be it, but if they did, they should be identified in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

NYTimes is paywalled. BBC worked for me usually; what does it say to you now? Gryllida 09:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

the BBC didn’t specify ~2025-44160-09 (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Review of revision 4968846 [Not Ready]

Revision 4968846 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 09:08, January 4, 2026 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Rewrite is requested: 1) Please specify date, and time zone, in first paragraph. 2) New York Times source is paywalled. Please remove it along with any information from it. If you wish to keep that information, please find another source for it. 3) Some sentences may require attribution. I was shocked to read the phrase " conspiracy to commit narco‐terrorism and conspiracy to import cocaine". Is it official accusation? The 'narco-terrorism' is a new word for me. If it was official accusation, then maybe it could be either wikilinked or taken into quotation marks. 4) Article body needs to be written in past tense. 5) Phrases like 'where Maduro was suspected to be located' and 'seizure of several oil tankers' are plagiarised and need to be written in your own words, if Earwig is to be believed. 6) Please double-check the chronology of writing corresponds to inverted pyramid to reduce revision required by reviewer at time of approval. Please revise and re-submit for review NOW while the news is still fresh. I will try to be available for next 12 hours to re-review. Thank you. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4968846 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 09:08, January 4, 2026 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Rewrite is requested: 1) Please specify date, and time zone, in first paragraph. 2) New York Times source is paywalled. Please remove it along with any information from it. If you wish to keep that information, please find another source for it. 3) Some sentences may require attribution. I was shocked to read the phrase " conspiracy to commit narco‐terrorism and conspiracy to import cocaine". Is it official accusation? The 'narco-terrorism' is a new word for me. If it was official accusation, then maybe it could be either wikilinked or taken into quotation marks. 4) Article body needs to be written in past tense. 5) Phrases like 'where Maduro was suspected to be located' and 'seizure of several oil tankers' are plagiarised and need to be written in your own words, if Earwig is to be believed. 6) Please double-check the chronology of writing corresponds to inverted pyramid to reduce revision required by reviewer at time of approval. Please revise and re-submit for review NOW while the news is still fresh. I will try to be available for next 12 hours to re-review. Thank you. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

-- Gryllida 09:08, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Asked42 maybe replace "not ready" in heading of the above comment, with "revision requested", for future messages? Gryllida 12:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

"Not ready" in the heading was used in the old EzPR as well. And as much as I observed, I think all of the older articles with review also use that format. So, are you sure that it would be better? Because if I change that, we will lose the uniformity with the EzPR script, which was a primary goal while developing the new EzPR 2025 to maintain uniformity with the older one. -- Asked42 (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

you can access the New York Times article without paywall by accessing it through its archive link.

i am fairly certain to have addressed 1, 3, 5. i am not sure about 6. 2 depends on you and 4 still needs to be done ~2025-44160-09 (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, NYT is not allowed even if available through archive, I believe. Gryllida 19:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

ok i removed it ~2025-44160-09 (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

specifically, i added another source so it wasn’t necessary to remove all content from the NYT like user:~2026-80852 did ~2025-44160-09 (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

i am now somewhat confident that i have addressed 4 ~2025-44160-09 (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

It's too inflated; it should be more neutral. --~2026-80852 (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

in what way do you think it is not neutral? ~2025-44160-09 (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Again, please remote NYT from sources and from article text. Gryllida 22:01, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

i have done so but i got reverted by user:~2026-80852 ~2025-44160-09 (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

revisions by user:~2026-80852/user:~2026-79692 (user:ZugGar89)

i believe this revision is removing too much. i think it is important to point out that sources contradict. for the rest, i have already changed/removed it.

this revision removes bloat i agree but i also think it gives context, ultimately if others agree that it’s fine to remove it i don’t really care

i think this revision is important. i have changed it so it doesn’t use the NYT. i believe it should be kept because we should report the material cost of the operation for both sides and the agency who organized the operation

this revision is good, i agree this is bloat.

this revision removes the response by Venezuela, i don’t see why it should be removed?

this revision removes a whole passage about context of american strikes in the region, political justifications of the trump administration, and their criticism. i think it is quite important to keep it

this revision removes the Venezuelean’s authorities side of the story and the list of nation that supported Venezuela, with comment “Venezuela, a pariah nation that has told many lies for 25 years.”

this revision adds something, which is the death toll of the operation but i’m not certain the sources mention that figure.

this revision adds a fox news source but there are still references to the NYT article, and many facts only present in the NYT article.

all these edits also do not remove the NYT source unlike this version. i am completely willing to discuss how to incorporate some of @user:~2026-80852 changes in this version

~2025-44160-09 (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

You can re-add what you wanted, as long as it is not coming from paywalled source. Please re-add now and let me know when it is done. Gryllida 22:17, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

i have tried to come to a compromise but i kept a lot of what @user:~2026-80852 removed. i do not wish for an edit war or any bickering. ~2025-44160-09 (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikinews is not bias. Or supposed to be. @~2025-44160-09 that other IP user is saying leftist. BigKrow (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

i have re‐added but @user:~2026-80852 is removing it all again. i don’t know what to do. they seem to have a different understanding of what neutrality means ~2025-44160-09 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article must be free from the propaganda bias and manipulations of the Venezuelan regime. ZugGar89 (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Request to re-add content

this is content was removed in this edit

• The BBC stated that these strikes follow a string of more than 30 strikes on Venezuelan vessels, and a strike on a “dock area” in Maracaibo, resulting in the death of more than 110 people. The Trump administration stated that it is engaging in “non‐international armed conflict with […] alleged drug traffickers”. According to the BBC, legal experts doubt the legality of these actions, saying the strikes are not against “lawful military targets”. According to CNN, Trump also justified not advising Congress before the operation to avoid a “leak”, which drew criticisms from Democrat lawmakers."

with this note

• This didn't even happen on January 3rd, and besides, whoever wrote this is a leftist

May I request that this is re-added please. Writing 'Trump said <some content here>' in a news report is okay, it is his own fault for saying <content>, it does not mean Wikinews endorses that content. It seems newsy. See WN:Attribution.

Thanks. Gryllida 22:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't want any more bias or propaganda from either side; this article must be objective and neutral. ZugGar89 (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

please read Wikinews:Neutrality ~2025-44160-09 (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Whatever Maduro says, yes or no, will have to be presented in the Southern District Court of New York; it's not valid here. ZugGar89 (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

that’s not how neutrality works here. the link i sent doesn’t directly address that but Wikinews:Neutral_point_of_view does. here neutrality doesn’t mean to represent the exact truth, but to represent the different point of views, equally, without endorsing any ~2025-44160-09 (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

specifically, not representing any or all point of views but the ones that are most prominent, or in this context, the ones shown in the source used ~2025-44160-09 (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

so what maduro and venezuela say are to be included—alongside what trump says. and that, whatever you think about it. this is neutrality ~2025-44160-09 (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

here is what i think, my “hot take” before i go to bed and wake up to expletives. you are being not neutral, and removing neutrality from the article, without asking anyone, without any consensus. you are destroying the neutrality of the article by only keeping the parts you think are true. this isn’t how this work. i think you should be banned, and this revision should be rolled back and used for review, revision which was made with the consorted effort of multiple people and went through one review which did not find major problems of neutrality unlike you claim. so you’re just wasting everyone’s time. good night. ~2025-44160-09 (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

sorry. it’s stupid but i was angry. i should know better than getting angry on the internet ~2025-44160-09 (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @ZugGar89 please present bias and propaganda from both sides if possible. it was part of the event. Gryllida 23:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Simplify article

This article has been simplified and may be revised--ZugGar89 (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Review of revision 4969279 [Passed]

Revision 4969279 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:29, January 4, 2026 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: reviewer left comments: 1) as discussed at the talk page I have had to restore a previous revision which contains the propaganda from both sides (US and the local countries in southern America) 2) i had to add attribution/source 'US President said that ...' to first paragraph to clarify where info came from in case it was fake. i recommend following further edits: 1) merge with the other page to be done within next 12 hours please 2) comment about the president wife having also been captured as i believe this is also the case but headline and first paragraph do not quite mention this i believe thanks The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4969279 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:29, January 4, 2026 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: reviewer left comments: 1) as discussed at the talk page I have had to restore a previous revision which contains the propaganda from both sides (US and the local countries in southern America) 2) i had to add attribution/source 'US President said that ...' to first paragraph to clarify where info came from in case it was fake. i recommend following further edits: 1) merge with the other page to be done within next 12 hours please 2) comment about the president wife having also been captured as i believe this is also the case but headline and first paragraph do not quite mention this i believe thanks The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

-- Gryllida 23:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

here is the link

U.S. says it detains Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro

please merge its content into this page immediately as soon as you are available

thanks Gryllida 23:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Gryllida The line where Maduro "Maduro has denied this and has said before that Trump's actual goal is to get access to Venezuela's oil reserves, as indicated by the United States' confiscation of several oil tankers." will be ruled on in the Southern District Court of New York, not here on Wikinews. ZugGar89 (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

he has said this so it should be kept, however need to attribute it so i accepted the removal for now. if someone finds out which source it came from, it is welcome to be re-added with clarification and a place, date where this comment was made and to whom. Gryllida 00:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

it is from the second BBC source. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c93n4nx5yqro ~2025-44160-09 (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

i have already merged content from your article into the page, unless you meant another link? ~2025-44160-09 (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

his wife getting captured is only mentioned in the middle of the article because i thought it wasn’t as important, since the headline doesn’t mention it; like it’s not the news we’re reporting ~2025-44160-09 (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2026 (UTC)