Talk:Venezuelan presidential crisis/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

"power void"

[This conversation has been copied from: Talk:Juan_Guaidó#"power_void" (permalink)]. It was decided that we should continue the conversation here. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)]

I agree with this edit by Cmonghost. Please keep in mind that the lede of the article is a SUMMARY of the article (see WP:LEDE). There is no mention of "power void" in the article. I have no idea if it is in the WP:RS or not. If it is not in secondary WP:RS, it should probably not be in the article at all. We are not doing WP:OR. Thanks for the catch, Cmonghost. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The term "power void" exist in English and its related term in Spanish "vacío de poder" it is used to describe the situation in Spanish. By doing a quick search I do not find the term used in English articles but maybe there is another term(?)--MaoGo (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The original term used in the Constitution of Venezuela is "falta absoluta", or "absolute absense", but for some reason it was translated in Wikisource as "permanently unavailable". --Jamez42 (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Do we have a policy on self-translating non-English-language documents when translations are already available? My impression was that it would be preferable to use an already available translation rather than doing it ourselves. The "permanently unavailable to serve" wording is what's used in the already available translation, and it's the wording I've seen quoted in most of the English-language sources explaining it (see the sources cited for the justification for the challenge on the other page). Wikisource says that version is "translated by Ministerio de Comunicación e Información", which if true would make it an official English version if I understand correctly that that's a ministry of the Venezuelan government. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 11:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

To all three of you above (MaoGo,Jamez42 and Cmonghost): If you are a new editor (or long-term editor) who has not carefully read WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR, please do. Then please explain why this primary source--the Constitution_of_Venezuela--should be quoted by us in this article rather than use a WP:SECONDARY source. Please explain why such a quote without a secondary source basis is not original research (WP:OR). I think much of the discussion by the three of you is based on the false premise that WE rather than the secondary sources should be deciding what parts of the Venezuelan Constitution are applicable to Guaido. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: could you clarify which is the source/line in question? --MaoGo (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@MaoGo: Constitution_of_Venezuela. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Are we in-line citing the constitution? I only see a footnote, also, we have the Constitution available in English. --MaoGo (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

OH! My greatest apologies, you are discussing the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis article. Right, let's see what we can do about that.--MaoGo (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

We are? I thought we were discussing the lead of this article. I just referred to the crisis article as an example of another article using the uncontroversial English translation (the same one you linked to). — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware of the policies around secondary sources, thanks for the reminder. We have gotten sidetracked on issues of the translation of the primary source. The initial wording I used is uncontroversial wording that's been quoted in (secondary) sources describing the matter used in other articles—as I just said above. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: I believe the secondary source should be translated--not the Constitution. If the secondary source quotes the Constitution, then I agree with you that probably an accepted translation of the Constitution would be acceptable rather than trying to translate the quote that comes directly from the Constitution.

If you can show me the secondary source(s) you are dealing with that would restore my confidence this entire discussion in not WP:OR. In the future, if you are talking about what secondary sources are saying, it would be helpful to point to them, so readers like me don't have to guess what you are talking about. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's an example that was provided to me by SandyGeorgia that outlines the reasoning for the Guaidó claim: [1]. The quotation is on that page. Here's another article: [2]. These are opinion pieces (from opposing perspectives) but it's difficult to find non-opinion pieces that actually quote the constitution. Anyway, I'm surprised this was controversial—that's why I didn't bother including the citation in my initial edit. It's the wording that's used elsewhere on Wikipedia when covering the challenge and it's the wording we have on Wikisource.

As a side note, I went and checked the other page I was referring to (2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis#Justification_for_the_challenge) and was shocked to find that it actually doesn't include any secondary sources (I assumed this Lawfare source was being used since SandyGeorgia referred me to it on that talk page). It only cites the constitution directly (which seems like an issue). Sorry for the confusion, I had been editing from my phone. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like a problem including in the places where you say, "It's the wording that's used elsewhere on Wikipedia when covering the challenge and it's the wording we have on Wikisource." [Not necessarily a problem for Wikisource which may not have secondary sourcing rules]. If you can point me to those places, I would appreciate it.

Without independent reliable secondary sources (WP:RS), I believe most of this discussion is moot and the language from the Constitution should not be included because to do so would be WP:OR. I may start deleting it from the article and point here, if I see it again and secondary sources are not provided. Thanks for the responses that help clarify. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The main place I've seen it is on the 2019 presidential crisis page that's already been linked. It's also on 2004 Venezuelan recall referendum. Another translation appears to be used on this page, with the source [3], but that article is also clearly opinionated. The source itself appears to have serious reliability problems on this topic, see for example this baffling article [4]. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

We should move the conversation to Talk:2019 Venezuelan Presidential crisis, I think that we can all agree that the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis#Justification for the challenge section needs better in-line sourcing.--MaoGo (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

If you want to COPY the conversation, that's fine with me. But please don't move it (i.e. don't delete this copy). This conversation needs to stay here, so that editors who come here from THIS article can easily find it. How about you let me copy it? I want to get confirmation from at least one more editor before we agree the conversation should be continued to where you suggest. I don't care that much where it takes place. Is that okay with you, Cmonghost? --David Tornheim (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I don't really care if it stays here if we're removing that information from this article anyway. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

We can copy it or just indicate that the conversation started here and continued there. --MaoGo (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for copying the conversation. I have done some fixes to the constitution part but it requires more sources. I can update it later. But I have an unexpected appointment so I have to leave. I left the bulleted part of the article under a footnote that has to be sourced before it can be brought again into the article. --MaoGo (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Update: that's it, that's my take on the Constitution section. A large part is in a footnote that has to be primary-sourced before being brought back.--MaoGo (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of infobox changes

@MaoGo: In this edit, you delete text raising two issues:

(1) Delete: "to the surprise of his colleagues." WP:RS: [5][6] Edit summary: "surprise by his "colleagues"? More like Zambrano who knew he was going to do it but was waiting per source".

I am not following the logic. Why did you delete the sourced content?

(2) Delete: "The National Assembly, the U.S. and 50 countries support Guaidó's action, but many countries and the U.N. continue to recognize Maduro as the president, and other countries like Mexico call for mediation." Edit Summary: "countries support is not really a cause"

I am confused as to how that is not part of the crisis. I believe a number of sources, including statements from Maduro speak about the influence of other countries causing there to this "crisis". If you want me to find those sources, I can.

--David Tornheim (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

(1)You are editing the infobox, it has to be summarized and clear. "Colleagues" is vague and secondly, unless I am reading your source wrong the only "surprised" was Zambrano by saying he expected the act but was suprised anyway(?). It seems well out of context.

(2)You are editing the "causes" part. Why add the countries recognition? that came as consequence of the crisis. --MaoGo (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Also if I can add, you may have seen the whole problem that has brought to Guaidó's article. Where the only under consensus source to summarize the recognition part has been the AP article in both leads. --MaoGo (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, to raise a third point (3) what is this[7]? Ok the you are getting closer to the source, but by adding the mix-up of the National Assembly (that happened under previous circumstances to the 23 January) you are taking the subject to explain something that could be better explained outside the lead with more detail, as of now the whole Guaido's recognition as president is cumbersome. --MaoGo (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

El Salvador

The new President was inaugurated today in El Salvador. There have been rumors that he supports Juan Guaido, can anyone confirm this? Ballers19 (Talk) 19:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

That information doesn't sound particularly relevant to this article. If true, and if he makes a statement about it on behalf of the government of El Salvador, it would be a better fit here: Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Rumors? You have to be kidding me. We don't put rumors in wikipedia. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• It was reported when he was elected, he fully supports Guaidó, adding to El Salvador's flip-flop on the matter. Wait for a nice good source covering. Kingsif (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

It is relevant to the Responses article, however not a lot of people read that article and edit it, so I thought talking about it here would receive more participation. David Tornheim, there is no need to be rude. I literally asked a simple questions about if people knew whether or not it was confirmed, I am well aware how Wikipedia works, thank you next. Thank you Kingsif for the feedback, at least there are still kind-hearted, decent people in this world. Ballers19 (Talk) 04:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The president-elect has shown his support for Guaidó, being the opposition candidate in El Salvador. I understand that he will take oath in a few weeks, but it's up to the consensus to decide if we can/should include a statement before. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Do you have a reliable source or not? If you don't have a source, no consensus can put it in. You know that don't you? --David Tornheim (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

No need to be rude. I wasn't precisely proposing it to be included, which I why I didn't mention sources, but there are plenty of those: [8][9][10][11][12] Furthermore, Nayir has declared that he wouldn't invite Daniel Ortega or Nicolás Maduro to his inaugurarion ceremony, Guaidó congratulared Nayir for his victory ([13]) and he reportedly will have a delegate in Nayir's inauguration ([14]). --Jamez42 (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, Jamez42. We should change this. Ballers19 (Talk) 22:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Change what? El Salvador is not even mentioned in this article. If you're discussing Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, you should move your discussion to that page. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Another attack to the Assembly

I'm starting to see this more and more in the news, so I'll include some refs here in case there can be a small mention about the event:[15][16][17] --Jamez42 (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Video and photos of kidnapping attempt

This source, cited in the article, says that there was a video and some photos released by Guaidó's press team. But they aren't linked in the source; were these released publicly or only to Reuters and other media? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Infobae has photos and video [18]MaoGo (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add this source to the article. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Himself

@Cmonghost:@MaoGo: Just seeing this edit, sorry if it was deleted before by accident. Like with other details, I have to opposed the qualifier "himself". Along with other wordings, such as "self-proclaimed", "in a public square", "in a rally", it has been used by critics and outlets that oppose Guaidó to take away any legitimacy that he may have. It is a over-simplification of an already convoluted situation, such as the precedents of the last presidential elections, previous decisions by the National Assembly and the Tribunal in exile, the constitutional crisis, the declaration of void of power by Maduro even before the presidential elections, etc. There isn't a confusion that Guaidó was swore in by someone else, and using the word in these circumstances is WP:UNDUE. It is a loaded word, and there's consensus to avoid other biased terms, such as "acting president"; as such it should be avoided. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: "Himself" is an accurate descriptor, and one used in reliable sources—including the one that is already in the article directly after the text in question. I am not at all convinced that "himself" is POV or loaded in any way. Can you explain why you think it is?

I also think you must be reading a different WP:UNDUE page than I am. Here is a direct quote from that page:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

It is not undue in the least to present the majority perspective, the perspective that is held and expressed by verifiable, reliable sources. On the contrary, it is undue to suppress this prominent perspective by using language that does not reflect the sources. I understand that your personal opinion is that using the word "himself" is not NPOV (though you've yet to clearly explain why), but as long as it is used in reliable sources, I don't see how your personal opinion matters. What matters is what's in the sources. Here's another quotation from WP:UNDUE that I think is relevant here:

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

I also want to note that a concession contrary to NPOV has already been made on Venezuelan crisis topics to not use the descriptor "self-declared", and related phrases such as "declared himself", which are also frequently used in reliable sources. It is not NPOV, nor is it encyclopedic, to cherrypick or censor the content of reliable sources to suit editors' personal opinions, and I'm disappointed that it is happening so frequently here. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 06:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, you claim that "himself" has been used by critics and outlets that oppose Guaidó to take away any legitimacy that he may have. On the contrary, it is used in high-quality sources such as the New York Times ("declared himself" and "swore himself in"), the Guardian ("swore himself in"), Reuters ("self-declared interim president", "self-proclaimed interim president", "swore himself in"), and even clearly US/opposition-aligned sources such as Voice of America ("swore himself in") ("declared himself interim president"), which is directly funded by the US government (our own article describes it as the United States federal government's official institution for non-military, external broadcasting). Do you contend that these are all critics and outlets that oppose Guaidó? Please be serious. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 06:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost:Refrain from making personal arguments. Accusing me of "cherrypicking", "censoring", promoting my "personal views" or asking me to "be serious" can constitute personal attacks, and I feel the discussions had been going smoothly for them to go downhill. Can we argue that in these six months since the start of the presidential crisis, regardless of the specific news in question, verifiable and reliable sources have consistently referred to Guaidó's proclamation has having "declared himself president"? I doubt that, and using four specific articles to show that would be real cherrypicking.

The nature of the phrasing in even more problematic to demonstrate that the use of the terms "coup", "uprising" or both. However, what we can do is to show that other wordings have been used in the past: BBC ("We cannot say that Juan Guaidó decided himself to assume the presidency, that would be a self-proclamation. We cannot say that he named himself president, because that would be a coup d'état. Who proclaims Guaidó as constitutional president, who gives him the legitimacy to act is Article 233 of the constitution."), Infobae ("decidió jurar formalmente como presidente encargado de Venezuela"), Efecto Cocuyo ("23 January 2019, the day that Venezuelans swore in a president"), El Pitazo ("después de que Juan Guaidó se proclamara"), El Estímulo ("Guaidó se juramenta"), to mention some. On the other hand, it can be shown that this term is also used by biased and unreliables sources, including some listed as such in the perinneal sources: Telesur [www.globalresearch.ca/new-coup-attempt-in-venezuela-led-by-juan-guaido/5666407 Global Research ("sworn himself")], (("sworn himself"), ("after proclaiming himself"), Mintpress News ("declared himself"), Orinoco Tribune ("proclaimed himself president in charge of Venezuela in a public square").

Arguments are not personal opinions. As it can be seen above, the use of "himself" takes away meaning from the legitimacy and its claims. If it didn't, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Precisely because of the Article 233 claims and previous decisions by the National Assembly, it is argued that Guaidó did not proclaim "himself", but that the constitution, the National Assembly, or the Venezuelan people did, however it would like to be called. WP:NPOV requires that either we use both phrasings with atributions ("Supporters say "took oath acoording to the constitution", "with support of the National Assembly", "was swore in by the Venezuelans in a rally", while critics say "self-proclaimed", "declared himself", "US-backed") or simply use a middle ground term, simply "took oath", "declared", "swore", etc. If I didn't include sources as examples before is because looking for them is time consuming, which is the same reason why I have replied so late, and quoting another discussion, continuing would be no better than a "pissing contest". These discussions about semantic can go back and forth endlessly, so my suggestion would be to use, in these cases, the simplest and most non-controversial wordings. Best regards. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Most of your sources don't really support the argument you're making:

• The quotation that you present from BBC is from a university professor they interviewed; it's not in their editorial voice. There are other quotations in the article, including from another university professor who disagrees. In BBC's actual voice, they use se proclamar multiple times.
• The Infobae article does not include "himself" but the use of "decided" emphasizes his agency in a similar way.
• El Pitazo says "proclaimed himself" so I'm not sure why you cited it.
• El Estímulo says "swore himself", see above.

The only source that you cited that is similar at all to what you want to include in the article is the one from Efecto Cocuyo, and that story has a clear pro-opposition stance. This is why WP:CHERRYPICK comes to mind.

Here are a few more reliable, verifiable (note that Spanish sources should be considered less verifiable than English sources on the English Wikipedia) sources that support the inclusion of "himself". It didn't take me very long to find them, probably because of how ubiquitous this wording is. There are many more articles that I could have included but didn't. I'm sure you can find them yourself quite easily.

• "swore himself in", "declared himself", NYT
• "swore himself in", "declared himself", NYT
• "swore himself in", NYT
• "declared himself", NYT
• "swore himself in", "declared himself", The Washington Post
• "swore himself in", "declared himself", The Washington Post
• "swore himself in", The Globe and Mail
• "swore himself in", Reuters
• "swore himself in", Reuters
• "declared himself", CNBC
• "declared himself", BBC
• "declared himself", BBC
• "declared himself", NPR
• "declared himself", AFP

As for your point that Telesur and others agree with the reliable sources I've just cited in using "declared himself", I don't think that matters. I'm sure Telesur and the New York Times would also agree that the sky is blue and the grass is green. But I never cited Telesur, Mintpress News or any of the other outlets you're complaining about here. Telesur and NYT using similar wording does not invalidate NYT.

As it can be seen above, the use of "himself" takes away meaning from the legitimacy and its claims. I disagree, and more importantly, it seems the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, Reuters, and many reliable sources do too.

These discussions about semantic can go back and forth endlessly. I agree that it's pointless to go back and forth about semantics. However, the only one talking about semantics here is you. I am talking about what is said by reliable sources.

my suggestion would be to use, in these cases, the simplest and most non-controversial wordings. I agree. That's why I think we should say "declared himself" and/or "swore himself in", which are substantially simpler than the other contortions that have been used thus far ("declared that he was president", for example, is much longer for no apparent gain). Per WP:NPOV, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. The prevalence of "declared himself" and "swore himself in" in reliable sources requires us to represent it in this article. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: I want to respond here to the claim in this edit summary that "No new points have been brought to the discussion". That is not true. In your earlier comment, you said the following:

Can we argue that in these six months since the start of the presidential crisis, regardless of the specific news in question, verifiable and reliable sources have consistently referred to Guaidó's proclamation has having "declared himself president"? I doubt that, and using four specific articles to show that would be real cherrypicking.

I brought forward many more sources showing exactly that: verifiable and reliable sources have consistently said that he "declared himself president" and "swore himself in". I don't see how the claim that "no new points" have been made is defensible, which is why I would prefer to discuss on talk than with terse edit summaries. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

further addendum I went ahead and fixed the wording, as it contained unnecessary, unnatural and confusing ellipsis. Note that while I did not re-insert "himself", I still think we should phrase it as "declared himself president" and/or "swore himself in" per my arguments and sources above, and look forward to further discussion of the same. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I apologize again, I've finally found time again to reply. Addressing first things first, the Spanish for "himself" would be "(verb) a sí mismo", meaning that saying "se proclamara, se juramenta, jurar formalmente" are closer to a infinitive form of "proclaims, takes oath, swears formally", without the connotation that he did it alone, or on his own. I also forgot to mention that since the crisis has been ongoing for six months I listed news only about the day of the proclamation. Given that we're talking about wordings and phrasings, Spanish sources shouldn't be considered "less verifiable" than English ones, specially when they are reliable, but here are other English sources that refrain from using "himself":

• "Mr. Guaidó, who claimed Venezuela’s presidency earlier this year"
• "Mr. Guaidó’s proclamation"
• "Guaidó has assumed authority under their Constitution" (quote)
• "Juan Guaidó assumed the symbolic role of interim president of Venezuela"
• "shortly afterward assumed the powers of the presidency"
• Juan Guaidó, the head of the National Assembly, who took the oath of office as interim president

I've previously argued two points that still stand: that sources have also refrained from using "himself" and that the term has been used by biased/pro-Maduro sources to minimize Guaidó's legitimacy. I have noticed that other terms besides the ones in the article have been used by sources and could be considered for the articles, such as "Mr. Guaidó has asserted that he is the interim president under Venezuela’s Constitution" or "contested the re-election of President Maduro" [19][20]. Personally I think even the phrase "had himself sworn in as interim president" sounds more acceptable that the previous ones. My edits clarified that there was a declaration and a oath based on clarifications that you also made, but it seems that the lengthy wording has been solved fortunately. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: I consulted a colleague of mine who speaks Spanish natively, who said that "después de que Juan Guaidó se proclamara 'presidente encargado' de Venezuela" would translate into English as "after Juan Guaidó (had) proclaimed himself 'president in charge' of Venezuela." (emphasis added) You can also have a look at the entry for se on Wiktionary, or any Spanish-English dictionary, to see that it is defined as Third person (also used for usted and ustedes) reflexive direct or indirect object oneself, himself, herself, itself, yourself; each other; one another (emphasis added). I have to disagree with your suggestion that given that we're talking about wordings and phrasings, Spanish sources shouldn't be considered "less verifiable" than English ones: if we are discussing how to describe the events in English, we need to use English sources, not Spanish ones, since the way we translate Spanish sources would depend on our own judgments.

I will address each of your listed sources below. I would also note that they are all from the New York Times, whereas I provided multiple articles from several different outlets, indicating a clear, widespread pattern of usage.

• The first source is only peripherally about Guaidó, and the text you cite links directly to this article which says "stood in the streets of the capital and declared himself the legitimate president", so I don't think this is a great example to use to make the case that NYT refrains from using "himself".
• The second source is again only peripherally about Guaidó, and the linked article about him, here, uses "swore himself in" and "declared himself president". Same point as above.
• Third: direct quote (as you acknowledge) from US Vice President Mike Pence. Not exactly an unbiased source, and certainly not in the voice of the NYT.
• Fourth: Opinion piece, not news article. See WP:NEWSORG: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.
• Fifth: same as fourth—opinion piece.
• Sixth: Another opinion piece, explicitly by a member of the opposition.

In other words, only two of the sources you cite are news articles that refrain from using "himself", and both are only peripherally related to the swearing-in and declaration of presidency—and both link to other articles from the same outlet that do use "himself". I do not think this is convincing evidence that "himself" is not widely used; it is only evidence that the New York Times does not always use the exact same wording to describe events across multiple articles. In fact, it suggests that most sources that avoid "himself" are opinionated and opposition-aligned, such as Mike Pence and the author of the sixth piece, who is a self-described member of the opposition. At any rate, I think we should prioritize the use of sources that deal directly with the issue, rather than those that just mention it in passing. Those sources overwhelmingly use "himself", as I've repeatedly shown.

To your other two points:

• sources have also refrained from using "himself". Yes, but many more have used "himself". I don't think we should use marginal, sparsely-attested wordings like "asserted that" or "had himself sworn in", as that would be undue. I think we should use the dominant wording. As for "contested the re-election", that is true of anyone who disputes the results of the election—the National Assembly has contested the results, the US has contested the results, and so on. It doesn't have the same meaning as "swore himself in" and/or "declared himself president" and so is not a suitable replacement.
• the term has been used by biased/pro-Maduro sources to minimize Guaidó's legitimacy. The first part is true: the term has been used by biased/pro-Maduro sources. It has also been used by reputable sources such as the New York Times, Washington Post, etc., that I'm sure you would agree are definitively not pro-Maduro, so I don't see why it matters—as I've already said. The latter part is dubious—how does it minimize Guaidó's legitimacy to accurately indicate that he swore himself in or declared himself president? I still haven't seen a clear explanation of why you feel that "himself" minimizes his legitimacy. Do you have a source for this or something?

In all, I feel that the justification for removing "himself" is quite weak. Decisions on Wikipedia have to be based on reliable sources and not the opinions of editors. If you do not have reliable sources to back up your claims, I think "himself" should be speedily re-added. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Remember that I'm a native Spanish speaker too. The issue in English is that unlike in Spanish, you can't write "Guaidó 'declared', 'proclaimed', 'swore'" without adding "himself". This means that while the grammatically correct translation in English would include "himself", the original meaning in Spanish does not, and there are sources that are translated as an infinitive both in English as in Spanish. WP:NPOV establishes that when found with two points of view, both must be included, which would bring the need of attribution when using "himself" and when not.

I'll quote the minimization of legitimacy in the biased sources quoted above where "himself" is used:

• [www.globalresearch.ca/new-coup-attempt-in-venezuela-led-by-juan-guaido/5666407 Global Research]: In an unconstitutional event the president of the National Assembly in judiciary contempt, Juan Guaido, sworn himself in on Wednesday morning. After which U.S. President Donald Trump recognized the illegal self-proclaimed president. The same was done by the Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS), Luis Almagro, who has instigated attacks against Venezuela and his Government.

• Telesur: Venezuela’s public prosecutor's office is advancing the investigation on the lawmaker, Juan Guaido, of the National Assembly, the legistlative body in contempt under the constitution, over his attempt to usurp governmental powers after proclaiming himself interim president of Venezuela.

• Orinoco Tribune: The reality is that almost three months after Guaidó proclaimed himself president in charge of Venezuela in a public square in Caracas and promised the resignation or departure of Nicolás Maduro from power and the convocation of free elections, nothing has changed in the country.

• Mintpress News: Canada has been a major player in orchestrating repeated coup attempts in Venezuela since Juan Guaido declared himself president in January.

Given that this it seems we can agree to disagree, that this has been discussed ad nauseam and that the discussion is increasingly difficult to keep track of, my advice would be to ask the commentary of third parties in any case. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Remember that I'm a native Spanish speaker too. I'm aware of that; my point is that there seem to be multiple potential translations, so we should go with English sources where we don't have to deal with that issue. Having editors translate from Spanish themselves is likely to introduce more bias than simply mirroring reliable English sources.

As for your citations from Telesur et al, I disagree that "himself" is what's minimizing Guaidó's legitimacy there. Rather, the surrounding text, which contains things like "in an unconstitutional event", "his attempt to usurp governmental powers", "repeated coup attempts", etc., is what minimizes his legitimacy. "Himself" is just the word used in English reflexives, just like se in Spanish. If it truly minimized his legitimacy, it wouldn't be used by NYT, and it certainly wouldn't be used by Voice of America!

I'll look into starting an RfC to get some outside feedback, but I am sincerely mystified that this is such a sticking point for you; speaking as a native English speaker I do not detect any bias in the use of "himself". — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Are you OK with the simple RfC question Should the lead use the word "himself"? If so I will post it tonight (or you could do it). After posting I will then include the two versions—the current one and the one that included "himself". — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: Good thinking. I will ping editors @MaoGo, Ballers19, and David Tornheim: so they may share their thoughts too. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not responded to this, I still have not made my mind about it. Isn't there a Spanish language or translation project you can ask to be sure that there is a mismatch with the Spanish sources? An RFC is not a bad idea, we have called RFC for lesser problems. --MaoGo (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

On Arévalo's cause of death

@Jamez42: I hope this is clear from my edit summary, but I am not opposed to removing the text "according to his lawyer" if an English source of equal or greater quality to Reuters supports this, but I don't think we should replace the Reuters source with a Spanish source, based on WP:NONENG; that would make the text less verifiable to an English-speaking reader. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

To your most recent edit summary: the text you quote from WP:NONENG comes directly before, and is modified by, However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. Your removal of the high-quality Reuters source contravenes this policy. Please reinstate it. Further, please do not accuse me of edit warring; as I said above, the issue is not with the text being added but that a lower-quality, less-verifiable source is being used. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Additionally to the language problem, I would also prefer to keep the Reuters source for reliability and notability. We work with what we got. I will look for more English sources later.--MaoGo (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I have replaced the Infobae with a PanAm Post and a The Guardian source. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed the PanAm Post article since it appears to be an opinion column (listed under Opinion section on the website, says Opinion at the top) but the Guardian source looks good. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Since this seems to be a controversial topic, I'll also note here that I changed the wording to a direct quote from the Guardian's translation of the autopsy, because it seemed to indicate a different ultimate cause of death. I don't think it needs to be a quotation necessarily, and their translation is a little clunky, but I couldn't think of a way to paraphrase without making it more complex. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• I still do not know why are we going into such details, I will recommend to keep the original wording supported by Reuters; it is simple enough. Is is about "according to the lawyer"? can we just cite the Guardian in support and erase that line?--MaoGo (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The Reuters source said that he died of "polytrauma with a blunt object" (with the quotes) which isn't fully supported by the Guardian; the Guardian translates the autopsy directly and cites cerebral edema as the ultimate cause of death. I would be fine with "Arévalo's cause of death was cerebral edema" or similar if we don't want to go into too much detail. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The most important detail is that the ultimate cause of death was polytrauma, while the cerebral edema and the rhabdomyolysis are consequences of itm according to the autopsy. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The source says that the cause of death was severe cerebral edema, which was caused by a chain of other factors. The source doesn't put any more emphasis on polytrauma than the other factors. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

"Severe cerebral edema [brain swelling] caused by acute respiratory failure caused by a pulmonary embolism caused by rhabdomyolysis [a potentially life-threatening breakdown of muscle fibers] by multiple trauma". It has an established order, polytrauma is the first factor and reliable sources have reported it as such. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The reliable source we are citing here lists all the factors, which is good because it specifies what the chain of events leading to his death was. Simply stating that he died due to polytrauma would be too vague (it literally just means multiple traumatic injuries) and leaving out the intermediate developments would make it unclear why polytrauma led to his death, as there are many ways for multiple traumatic injuries to kill a person. The wording as it currently stands makes that clear; if we are cutting it down as MaoGo suggested I do not think it's specific enough to list his cause of death simply as "polytrauma"; at least the brain swelling (which was the ultimate cause of death per the report as translated by the Guardian) should be included if not the entire chain. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Use of opinion article as source for facts

@Jamez42: This is regarding this reversion. Can you please indicate what in WP:SECONDARY allows for the use of opinion sources for facts other than the author's point of view? Your reversion appears to be contrary to WP:NEWSORG, which states that Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Mundaray is not the author of the piece, so it is not a reliable source for what he said. Nothing in WP:SECONDARY appears to contradict that part of WP:NEWSORG. In general, could you please provide more informative edit summaries when making disputed changes, or use the talk page, per WP:REVTALK? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: I didn't have the time to respond satisfactorily until now, answered in the Rafael Acosta Arévalo talk page and copying here for reference: --Jamez42 (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I only moved the content in the presidential crisis article here when it was trimmed. WP:SECONDARY specifically considers nalysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas as secondary sources. The content is not the author's point of view, but rather a translation of the original text in Spanish, which was added and removed in the article, based on the translation of the Spanish version, even before I started editing this article. I'm not sure if WP:SECONDARY is the most accurate policy to quote, but what I also meant is that the current PanAm Post is used as a support source for the Spanish sources (not sure if WP:NOENG applies in this case either), and the current content doesn't depend on it to be verified. In any case, I have added two more Spanish sources given that English sources seem to haven't picked up Mundaray's statement yet. Either that or my search engine isn't helping me. What I keep asking myself and I would like to know is why, after I added Mundaray's statement using only El Pitazo and with a similar translation, you decide to restore it without including many other of the findings, such as the Fracture of the nasal septum, excoriations (...), hematomas (...), whip-like injuries (...) the foot fracture and the abrasions? --Jamez42 (talk)

Pictures

The last part of the event sections is getting kind of "dreary", we may need more pictures for May-June-July events. Any ideas? --MaoGo (talk) 11:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

On the meantime, we could add pictures of Edgar Zambrano, Gilber Caro, Bachelet and Raúl Baduel. However, it would be excellent to have pictures of Bachelet's visit, I think there are some when she visits the Metropolitan University, as well as Rafael Arévalo. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I added a picture of Zambrano but at least one more for June-July would be nice.--MaoGo (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC on "himself"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus in favor of noting that Guaidó swore himself in. This position was advanced by a substantial number of participants and those who favored an alternative word did not advance any policy or guideline arguments which would suggest that this is not the consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Should the lead use the word "himself" in the context of Juan Guaidó's swearing-in and declaration of acting presidency?

Here are two example wordings for each choice, though they need not be the verbatim final text:

• himself: Guaidó declared himself acting president and swore himself in.

• no himself: Guaidó declared that he was acting president and took the presidential oath.

Please respond with either himself or no himself with an explanation for your stance. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Himself Honestly, I think this issue is pretty cut and dried. The wording with "himself" is ubiquitous in highly-regarded reliable sources such as the New York Times (I listed many of these here, though the list is not even close to exhaustive), whereas the wording without "himself" appears marginal. While a few sources have been found that don't use "himself", most of these were from clearly opinionated sources, such as US Vice President Mike Pence, one of Guaidó's most outspoken supporters. I noted here that even two news articles unearthed from the NYT that do not use "himself" link to other articles for further info from the same outlet that do use it.

The argument has been made that opinionated pro-Maduro sources such as the deprecated source Telesur use "himself", purportedly to undermine Guaidó's legitimacy as acting president, but I find this line of argument dubious. While it's true that Telesur uses "himself", I don't think that's particularly meaningful, given that is also used by the New York Times, Washington Post, Reuters, and other highly-regarded sources—and it's also used even in clearly pro-opposition, anti-Maduro sources like Voice of America ([21][22]), which is directly funded by the US government and is the United States federal government's official institution for non-military, external broadcasting per our article on the subject.

The fact that "himself" is used in Telesur, Voice of America and everything in between is strong evidence that it is a widely-accepted and uncontroversial view. Sources across the ideological spectrum—and more importantly, highly-regarded perennial sources such as the New York Times and Reuters—refer to Guaidó as having "declared himself president" and "sworn himself in". Per WP:WEIGHT, neutrality requires that we represent this widely-held view in our article. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• No himself: Two main points: the lack of use of "himself" has been used before by reliable sources and the term "himself" has been used by biased and pro-Maduro sources by undermine Guaidó's legitimacy. The difference between the use in reliable and unreliable source is the phrasing, which doesn't change the fact that the word is prejudicial. Per WP:NPOV, and considering the existance of two points of views, attribution or the use of both wordings is advisable.

Guaidó's claim is also based in previous actions by the National Assembly and, as known, a constitutional interpretation, so the burden of the declaration does not rest solely in him, and defining "himself" is misleading in this sense. --Jamez42 (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I would like to say in advance that the RfC was started to look for insight regarding the issue, and as such shouldn't be seen as a poll --Jamez42 (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean, but my intention was for it to be a normal RfC per WP:RfC, to be used to help resolve the disagreement and reach consensus. I don't think any RfCs should be seen as polls, since what counts most is the strength of the arguments rather than the number of !votes. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Not assuming anything in particular, it's just a note that I think important to point out before other arguments are brought. Those are precisely my points. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not polling is a factor is a decision for the uninvolved editor: "If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it..." GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Only the first "himself" - I agree with cmonghost that "swore himself in" while perhaps true, is not necessary. It is likely not WP:NPOV and possibly WP:FRINGE as it attempts to suggest that some requirement of the solmisation/ceremony was not adhered too (see Obama's first swearing in). I think the other "himself" is appropriate however (ie "Guaidó declared himself acting president"). This is appropriate because his legitimacy (to claim the presidency) is questioned, and ultimately his authority to declare himself president comes from himself. Why is he president now? Because he says he is and some others agree. That is it. So I think we can say "He declared himself acting president and took the presidential oath."--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not certain that there's a meaningful difference between the versions, especially when the sentence is read in the context of the rest of the lead (and article). While the use of "himself" in isolation could carry a connotation of illegitimacy, IMO this is a pretty mild connotation, which in the context of a neutral presentation of claims should have little effect on the article's neutrality. If I have to choose, I guess I'd lean toward including "himself" given that everyone from Telesur to VoA (and actual reliable sources between them) uses this phrasing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• No himself: agreed with Jamez42.--ColumbiaXY (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• • Comment I think the difference of implications of either version are in the eye of the beholder. Having said that, it seems that we should strive for accuracy. Can someone please provide the sequence of events. Did Guaido declare he was president before or after swearing the oath and was it administered by him or by someone else? If it was, we should name that person. Also, Acting President of Venezuela is a formal title which we should consider capitalizing. TFD (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• Himself, given that so many reliable sources use this phrasing, e.g. as demonstrated by searching for the text "himself" at Talk:Juan Guaidó. -Darouet (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Himself: There's practically no semantic difference between either option, only a tonal one. The second option doesn't clarify that it was not a state-mandated act. SUM1 (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
• Himself Cmonghost's points are valid. GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

About the lead

@Lecen and Nihlus1: This kind of editions [23] were highly controversial in Juan Guaidó, see for example Familiar geopolitical sides. Please, if you are going to reformulate the phrasing on the countries provide a source with a similar wording to the one you are adding. Also remember that we have a whole article on country recognition, no need to name all in the lead.--MaoGo (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Also the lead already says that there are 54 countries supporting Guaidó.--MaoGo (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring - "Pro Maduro" label

@Kingsif: @Notrium: I have protected the article for 24 hours so please discuss this dispute here and build consensus with other editors, rather than edit warring in the article over it.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: I already started a discussion here. Kingsif (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Let's hope Notrium also engages the discussion and you can come to an agreement.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Sure. Thanks for the protection - I wasn't going to go past 3RR, hence the discussion, but also don't want other editors getting involved in the dispute, too. I'm not sure there'll be an agreement based on a few talkpage discussions featuring Notrium that I've just scanned through; if there was no consensus, could the page just be reverted to before he got involved? Kingsif (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif:, I find your comment immediately above abhorrent! Not only do you keep making ad hominems (but more subtly this time), you actually dare to ask an admin to break his neutrality to benefit you. Notrium (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Notrium: ... I asked, Amakuru could say no. If there was no resolution, an admin would have to decide where to leave the page, anyway, don't claim you wouldn't argue for it to be on your edit. I also, not in an offensive way but very genuinely, had good reason to believe that your response would be as combative as on other talkpages. It's not a personal attack to say "hey, I looked up this guy and he can be a bit angry when people challenge him". It's a reasonable statement of fact, and I'm just pleasantly surprised you were civil. Kingsif (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: @Notrium: Just to answer this question, absent any other considerations the default per WP:BRD is to revert to the status quo if there's no consensus on what to do. In this case I believe that the adjective "pro-Maduro" was already in place before the dispute arose, so that's the default. I say absent any other considerations, though, because there's a WP:BLP issue at play here too. If it's not properly demonstrated that the majority of reliable sources describe the court as pro-Maduro, then our policy would say we should not state it as so as Maduro is a BLP and we can't say things about him without proper evidence. Anyway, my hope is that such a determination by a neutral party won't be necessary because if you avoid attacking each other, and leave aside tangential irrelevant disputes over who is more knowledgeable or experienced about Venezuelan topics, you'll be able to come up with a compromise. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru:, indeed, the BLP issue does not relate just to Maduro, but (even more?) to the members of the institutions in question. Notrium (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Changes need to be made

As this crisis is stretching into its anniversary, some changes need to be made. First, the title should eventually be change to Venezuelan presidential crisis. Next, this article needs to be slimmed down as the current monthly format will go away with the passing of 2019. I will begin to slim down the article and will move what I can to appropriate articles.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I support the idea to move as "Venezuelan presidential crisis". --Jamez42 (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I also support the name change (although I should say there was another period in Venezuelan history were there were two presidents between 1914 and 1922). For the dates, I would say that the best is to retitle the Events sections to 2019 Events (and create a 2020 section if necessary), for the rest a date can be added.--MaoGo (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Dictator Juan Vicente Gómez had several brief puppet presidencies: José Gil Fortoul, Victorino Márquez Bustillos, Juan Bautista Pérez and Eleazar López Contreras, to keep appearances during his reign between 1908 and 1935, until his death. As far as I know, this is the first time in the office of Venezuela where the office of the presidency has been actively contrasted and disputed. Still, many thanks for the observation :) --Jamez42 (talk) 09:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

There should be a chronology section, since the events have taken place over a relatively long period of time. TFD (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a Timeline of the 2019 Venezuelan protests that could be expanded.--MaoGo (talk) 10:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

"Alleged coup plot"

@Cmonghost:@David Tornheim: I removed the wording of "Alleged coup plot" from the title for two main reasons: there has not been coverage after the accusations of a coup, unlike with the case of Rafael Acosta Arévalo's death, and coup accusations aren't particularly distinctive of this period; for example quoting from the Nicolás Maduro article:

Maduro continued the practice of his predecessor, Hugo Chávez, of denouncing alleged conspiracies against him or his government; in a period of fifteen months following his election, dozens of conspiracies, some supposedly linked to assassination and coup attempts, were reported by Maduro's government. In this same period, the number of attempted coups claimed by the Venezuelan government outnumbered all attempted and executed coups occurring worldwide in the same period.

References

I would add that it's interesting that the Foreign Policy source was published only two years into Maduro's presidency, so it would be safe to assume that the number of attempted coups claimed by the Venezuelan government now may double or even triple all attempted and executed coups occurring worldwide in the same period. Neither are coup accusations particularly new, as Chávez already did these accusations as early as 2001. If I recall correcrtly, a lot of this has been discussed in the proposal to move the uprising attempt title as coup

Not only this issues have not been addressed, but an "arrest" was also quoted as being relevant for keeping the title. The closest description to the arrest was the kidnapping attempt described in the second paragraph, which was not fulfilled, and once again, it took place on the same day of the accusations, 27 June.

Taking into account all of thism, I think it's important to ask why the title should be kept. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

There is coverage both new and old calling it a coup plot -and- an "alleged" coup plot:

• "After Failed Coup, Maduro Moves Against Members Of Venezuelan Opposition". NPR.org. Retrieved 2019-12-26.
• Torres, Patricia; Borger, Julian; Daniels, Joe Parkin; Phillips, Tom (2019-05-03). "The plot that failed: how Venezuela's 'uprising' fizzled". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-12-26.
• The Plot to Overthrow Venezuela: How the US Is Orchestrating a Coup for Oil by human and labor rights lawyer Daniel Kovalik.
• "Venezuela government says it derailed a coup attempt, opposition denies". France 24. 2019-06-26. Retrieved 2019-12-26.
• Torchia, Joshua Goodman and Christopher. "How the Venezuelan 'coup' didn't get beyond street demonstrations supporting Juan Guaido". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2019-12-26.
• "Venezuela's Maduro says authorities foiled opposition coup plot". Reuters. 2019-06-26. Retrieved 2019-12-26.

How are the sources from 2014 and 2015 relevant?

--David Tornheim (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

You have to make the difference between whatever Guaidó was doing and the alleged military coup that is described in that section (that allegedly involved Baduel and other members that are not Guaidó et al.).--MaoGo (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: As I stated in my edit summary, the section pertains primarily to the "coup plot", which is what the reliable sources cited in the section refer to it as. Only the final paragraph of the section pertains to Acosta Arévalo's death, which was in and of itself related to the alleged plot, since according to the government, he was arrested for alleged involvement in the plot. This is also mentioned in reliable sources. The section heading should describe the section as a whole, not just the final paragraph.

In your edit summary reverting my revert (contrary to WP:BRD), you say Doesn't address concerns raised. Yet you make no mention of the concern that I raised with your initial edit, namely that the section heading should inform the reader what the section is about, and your version fails to do so. As for your concerns, I don't really see why the fact that Maduro and Chávez have alleged other coup attempts in the past has any relation to whether or not "alleged coup plot" should be part of the section heading — we aren't covering the other alleged coup attempts in the article, so it's not like it's going to confuse the reader, and it's a section heading, not an article title, so discoverability isn't an issue either. As for a lack of follow-up coverage, I think you're mistaken. Most sources reporting on the death also describe why he was detained in the first place. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

^I agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: The only argument that I see reasonable is that Acosta Arévalo was detained for the coup allegations. Still, if the section was to be expanded to an extent that most of its content would talk about Arévalo's death, would that be a reason to remove the wording? Not taking into account the first rationale is the fault in is line of reasoning. @David Tornheim: The sources that you offered are completely unrelated to the 26 June plot accusations follow ups, and some of them even predate them. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I didn't receive your ping. I think it only works if you include your signature at the same time (so adding a ping through editing doesn't work unless you replace your signature, if I understand correctly). I disagree with your changing "death" to "torture" — the more consequential event is the fact that he died, not how he died. Were the individuals responsible convicted of murder? If so, then "murder" could be used, but the "torture" wording is awkward and doesn't convey the most important part of the event. Also, the current text of the article only refers to "torture" as an allegation, so before changing the heading, the information about the convictions should be added to the section itself.

If there's more to write about his death, then it can and should be included, within reason (keeping in mind WP:COATRACK). Even if most of the section discussed his death (this would require adding several paragraphs), I don't think that would be grounds for changing the section heading, since a significant portion of it would still have to do with the alleged plot, and again, the reason he was detained and interrogated was because he was allegedly involved in it.

PS: Two of the sources David Tornheim cited are in fact about the 26 June event. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Prose size 2020

We are still struggling with the prose size, I think we may trim specially in the recently added sections: "Guaidó loses support" and "Economy rebounds, murder decrease", the first might be moved to the responses article or scrapped partially as (as far as I know) some of it is already on Guaidó's article. Additionally, according to AP/Datanalisis popularity is boosting again[24], I am unsure this is the article to keep track of the ups and downs of popularity. We may keep the CLAP investigation as it is relevant for the parliamentary crisis but I hope it can be shortened, a translation of Operación Alacrán may help. For the second section, I am worried that the paragraph does not describe particular events and should go outside the "events" section. Some can go into other articles like the economy, the crisis, hyperinflation, murder/violence articles.--MaoGo (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@MaoGo: Maybe we can start a section about Public opinion to merge these contents? It would be reasonable considering that this crisis depends on legitimacy and politics. I will take a look at the article to see if I can trim it in the meantime. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jamez42: We have a public opinion section at Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis--MaoGo (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible to split by year - Venezuelan presidential crisis in 2019 and ...in 2020 - or by topic - Responses, etc. Kingsif (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• "We may trim" is positive, but it's also quite an understatement. No, Kingsif, do not split all this out, and don't bloat the servers with "responses". Trim this. There is no good reason for this article to be larger than Middle Ages or whatever. Apply NOTNEWS. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Assets and reserves

I was looking into old versions of the article to find lost references, and I found that a whole section called "assets and reserves" dissapeared at some point, see for example [25]. Do anybody knows if this was copied anywhere else? @Jamez42: maybe you know something about it? It is definitely not in the sanctions article.--MaoGo (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@MaoGo: I just found the edit where the section was removed. The removal took place on 11 January by @Drmies:. I think the content could be restored and that there could be further efforts to trim the article. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Maduro is backed also by African Union...

So that's a lot more than 20 countries. African Union has 54 nations. They back Maduro as the natural leader of Venezuela (Google African Union Maduro.) Also, any country that doesn't specifically back Gauido would be backing the non U.S. picked leader of Venezuela. Also- no mention of the other 30-40-something or so other people who claim they should be heir of Venezuela right now. CaribDigita (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@CaribDigita: Please see Talk:Venezuelan presidential crisis/Archive 2#African Union, this issue has been discussed in the past. Also, please bear in mind WP:NOFORUM. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Update March

I see that it was added a section on US indictment and deal proposal. I think that section should be larger to include the failed IMF petition, Guaidó proposal of $1billion if a new "emergency government" is accepted, to help with coronavirus, Guaidó's collaborators arrest, and Guaidó being called to the "fiscalía". Some of this can already be copied from the coronavirus in Venezuela article.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a good idea, in the process the title could be replaced with a more suitable one. While we're at it, I should comment that the recently added Arreaza statement about that "decisions about Venezuela would be made in Caracas and not in Washington" and that "that the most important transition for Venezuela was the one started many years ago from capitalism to socialism" appears to be undue weight given its political nature and a similar statement by Guaidó is not included. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

It shows clearly the attitude of the government towards the proposal. If Guaidó made a similar statement we should include it as well. The article does contain other statements similar in tone. Burrobert (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Burrobert: Can you point out which are the statements in question? The government's attitude is already expressed by saying that only parliamentary elections would take place. --Jamez42 (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

There are no statements in question as far as I know. The government's attitude isn't fully covered by saying that elections will be held. Burrobert (talk) 09:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Burrobert: Didn't you say that "The article contain other statements similar in tone"? --Jamez42 (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes I did. But I am not questioning them. Burrobert (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Burrobert: Precisely, I'm asking which are said statements that you refer to. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Firstly can you tell me what you mean by saying the added quote has a “political nature”? Burrobert (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Burrobert: I said that the comment quote in question was that decisions about Venezuela would be made in Caracas and not in Washington and that the most important transition for Venezuela was the one started many years ago from capitalism to socialism. You said that The article does contain other statements similar in tone. If there aren't statements similar in tone in the article that come to mind, then the recent change is not based in policy and as such should be removed. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

When you mentioned the quotes you said they had a “political nature”. What did you mean? Burrobert (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Burrobert: Since you haven't mentioned statements as examples, I'll assume that you did not have any in mind when you said that.

That being said, the first statement is an assumption that "decisions would be made", like an order or imposition instead of a proposal, while the second one offers a simple and binary view of capitalism versus socialism. Another way to say this is that this doesn't offer more information to the article other that Maduro disagrees with the proposal or that a transition has already happened/is not necessary anymore. The same meaning can be conveyed with phrases such as "Arreaza rejected foreign proposals", "Arreaza stated that the most important transition for Venezuela was the Bolivarian Revolution". Thus the importance of third sources. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I wanted you to explain yourself before providing examples as I wanted to choose examples from the article that matched your definition of ‘political nature’. However after your explanation, I am still unclear about what you mean by ‘political nature’. In your explanation you seem to be saying that the added text has the same meaning as "Arreaza rejected foreign proposals”. If that were the case I don't see the connection to 'political nature'. Can you make it clearer? In fact, I think the added text contains a lot more content and in stronger language than that. For example, it rejects the idea that Washington has a legitimate role to play in deciding the future of Venezuela. The statement is about more than one specific proposal as it comments on all outside interference in Venezuelan affairs. It also reaffirms the governments intention to continue on the path to socialism which isn't mentioned in "Arreaza rejected foreign proposals”. But where in your opinion does the ‘political nature’ come in? Burrobert (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I am also struggling to understand the importance of that phrase. Why isn't that quote under quotation marks "" anyway?--ReyHahn (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

What is the main article

There have been a number of recent deletions with summary "Trimming content already included in main article". What is the main article for each of the deletions? Burrobert (talk) 06:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Each section's main article, along with a few others: 2019 Venezuelan blackouts, Foreign involvement during the Venezuelan presidential crisis, International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis, Gilber Caro and Leopoldo López. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Singapore recognizes Guaido/National Assembly?

On the page's main sidebar, which lists states backing either Guaido or Maduro, Singapore is listed as supporting Guaido. Does anyone have a source to back that up? Because in any case, that claim is contradicted by the main map of the article "Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis," (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responses_to_the_Venezuelan_presidential_crisis) where Singapore is depicted as having given "No Statement". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aumapathi (talk • contribs)

@Aumapathi: Not only that, but it appears that it has not been discussed in this talk page and I cannot find references supporting this. Note how Singapore is included only in the infobox and not in the main content. I've removed it for these reasons. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

"Parole"

I noticed that the conditional release in Venezuela, under certain conditions such as prohibition to exit the country or a regular presentation in courts, appears to be the closest concept to a parole, but a fear that this causes misconceptions due to differences with systems such as that of the US. Has it been used in reliable sources? Should it be used in articles? --Jamez42 (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I have sometimes seen "released on parole" as an equivalent term, but I also worry that it may misled some readers.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I do not know the details and differences between both terms, I hope that we can get more feedback on this.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of La Guaira naval attack

As @ReyHahn: mentions, this section may not be relevant. Some of the disputed wider context of the La Guaira naval attack might be: that Goudreau claims he had a deal with Guaidó to overthrow Maduro at some point in the past. But otherwise, it's just some jumped up American with a boat and no plan. Kingsif (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It probably is better to make a mention of this if it becomes part of a broader armed movement, but for the time being I support the exclusion of the section. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

J.J. Rendón has stated in an interview with the Washington Post that Guaidó and the opposition were involved in initial plans for "an operation to capture/detain/remove the current Regime and install the recognized Venezuelan President Juan Guaidó." I don't see how the position that this is not relevant to the ongoing presidential crisis can possibly be justified. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It does seem quite relevant. Burrobert (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: @Burrobert: I agree. It is relevant at this point.----ZiaLater (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the U.S. was actually involved, but that it has been discussed in the media. The best judgment is that the U.S. government might have been involved. Whether or not they actually were, it is a major event. TFD (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

End date

Now that the 2020 parliamentary elections took place, it might be relevant to consider an end date for the presidential crisis. This is an issue that often happens with the protests articles, where more often than not it is difficult to see a turning point when the events hve happened so recently. Either the infobox could be updated by explaining why the current situation is different from the start or a more important event can be waited for (e.g: Guaidó is imprisoned). --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The article is long, some has to go out to make place for the events of the parliamentary election. I am not sure how to handle the status of this crisis, upcoming events in national and international politics could still influence it in so many ways, or open a possibility for a new article. But until then, I think we should at least write the last chapter of the article and not add more until a clear event comes in.--ReyHahn (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Also: let us wait to see what happen around the 6 January when the new Parliament should start.--ReyHahn (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

We might want to change the name since by definition of short duration. It looks like Guaido will never give up his claim, but will never achieve it either. Perhaps we should change crisis to controversy. TFD (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

In january 6, the european union stopped recognizing Guaidó as the legitimate president: https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1346874198556336128 I propose that the end of recognition by the EU should mark the end of the presidential crisis. I will edit the article if nobody opposes this.Seekallknowledge (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Please wait for more users to comment, we have to decide how to handle several pages.--ReyHahn (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The EU still doesn't recognize the Maduro presidency. TFD (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

We all oppose that, Seekallknowledge. One supranational body ending recognition of Guaidó does not mean that 1. they recognize Maduro (and no recognition is worsening the crisis), or 2. anyone else has stopped recognizing Guaidó (including more relevant nations and bodies, like American nations and the UK) Kingsif (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The European Union never formally recognized Guaidó as president since the resolution was blocked by Italy back then, so it was up to the individual member states to deal with the recognition; this means that there has not been changes to the recognition. The issue has been previously discused in the talk page (Archive 1:The European Union parliament just announced they recognize Guiado, Archive 3:European Union). Europapress rectified previous headline echoing the misconception by reporting that the EU "avoids taking a position in the issue" and "leaves it up to their member states". --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There were changes to recognition. The reuters article said: "The European Union can no longer legally recognise Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido as the country’s legitimate head of state after he lost his position as head of parliament, *the bloc’s 27 governments said on Wednesday*." This means that even though the entire EU did not agree to recognize Guaidó as the legitimate president back then, the EU now unanimously agrees that Guaidó is not the president of Venezuela. Seekallknowledge (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd concur that this aspect of the Venezuelan crisis appears to be over. With the opposition's own election boycott rendering accusations of vote rigging moot over the question of whether or not their mandate remains in power, they have essentially surrendered any potential claims to legitimacy as they have lost the last opposition-controlled institution and along with it, any institutional power and credibility they might have held. This does not necessarily legitimize Maduro, but it does delegitimize Guaidó, as there is no legal mechanism trough which he can continue to claim to be President of Venezuela. In practice not much has changed, as Guaidó never managed to actually exercise power as President, as his 'interim Presidency' was never recognized by Venezuelan courts, electoral authorities or other state institutions (most notably the military and security forces). It's already been two years since the start of the crisis and it has become apparent that he has failed at unseating Maduro, at least for the time being. Presently, there is not a single state institution in Venezuela that recognizes Guaidó as President and moreover, he has now also lost his seat in the National Assembly, which returns him to the status of a simple private citizen of Venezuela. The EU's new declaration clearly states that it does not recognize him as interim president anymore and their designation of him as an assembly member of the outgoing assembly implicitly recognizes the reality of the new assembly. This does not equate with support for Maduro, but it does mean that from now on Juan Guaidó will be seen by the EU as a Venezuelan opposition leader and nothing more. Of course, the EU is not the supreme international arbiter of heads of state and countries such as the US and the UK still recognize him as interim president. However, that too may soon change with the end of Trump's term. In any case, Guaidó's undisputed end of term due to the end of the election, coupled with the recent rejection of recognition and his inability to come into or exercise power for two whole years, in my opinion, is grounds enough to consider this aspect of the crisis over. It does not mean that the crisis is over, but merely that the legal challenge to Maduro's presidency appears to be over, with the opposition and international power brokers unaligned with Maduro instead preferring to switch to a more generic support for new elections, rather than recognizing an opposing government. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Last few comments are focused on recognition of Guaidó. This is a relevant issue for the discussion on his page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Juan_Guaid%C3%B3#Acting_president? However, whether or not Guaidó is recognised is not synonyous with whether the presidential crisis (or perhaps now controversy) is over, as Maduro's de facto presidency remains contested. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but the crisis over which of the two is the current President appears to be over. There are still disputes over the legitimacy of Maduro's Presidency, but at present he is the only one who can claim that title, as well as the only one that can exercise power on its behalf. Goodposts (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Goodposts. Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with Goodposts and his great analysis Seekallknowledge (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Recognition map

The map needs to be updated as Andorra no longer recognizes Juan Guaidó as the interim President of Venezuela. Reference:https://www.diariandorra.ad/noticies/nacional/2021/02/01/andorra_deixa_reconeixer_guaido_com_president_venecuela_174123_1125.html Amaan4210 (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

For the recognition map write in the talk of Talk:Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Related RfC

Please see:

• Talk:Juan_Guaidó#RfC:_Is_Juan_Guaido_still_interim_president_of_Venezuela?

--David Tornheim (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Peru

Hi! Why has Peru been coloured in grey as neutral? Has Castillo made any statement? I only know that he does not recognise Guaidó's ambassador any longer but that combined with the deactivation of the Lima Group seems confusing as to Peru's colour. Opinions? CoryGlee (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2021 and 7 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Per9yj.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Iran?

Mausebru added the Iran–United States proxy conflict category to this page. Well, Iran does recognize Maduro, and the Oil Minister of Iran recently met with him. However, I think any relation between this crisis and Iran is tangential at best. Both countries are rich in oil and well-known for their disputes with the United States, but they are very far from each other and not particularly strongly economically or otherwise connected. The crisis was primarily caused by concerns about electoral fraud in Venezuela and a deeper political rift in the country (of course, the United States has had poor relations with the Venezuelan government ever since the time of Chavez, hence their support for Guaidó). Any opinions are welcome. --2A02:AB04:2AB:700:BC59:8151:4E33:5EAD (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

They might be geographically far, but still are close allies united against 'American imperialism' and Venezuela expressed support to Iran during the 2019–2021 Persian Gulf crisis and the Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict, plus the Nuclear program of Iran.--Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 22:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

verifikado.com appears unreliable and spam

• User_talk:NoonIcarus#verifikado.com_as_a_reference
• Talk:Jeffrey_Sachs#Expansion_attempts_of_Venezuela_section
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Hipal_reported_by_User:NoonIcarus_(Result:_No_violation)

I've tried to get editors to explain how we could possibly consider verifikado.com as reliable. After three weeks, I'm treating it as spam. Hipal (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

(Strikeout last sentence above). It's been over three weeks, and there's no consensus that it's reliable. --Hipal (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Saying that no explanations have been given to support the sources reliability is demonstrably false: I have stated that "Verifikado is a fact checker"([26]) and that "the website is not a blog, a self-published reference or has any indications that suggest that it is unreliable, particularly without examples." [27][28]). User SandyGeorgia has also commented this, pointing out at Verifikado's status as a fact checker and commenting on how she thinks that the source should be used ([29]). The edit summaries of the restorations go into further details regarding this, and the complaint in the edit warring noticeboard reflects many of these things as well.

Another point I have stated is that [the reliability] it has otherwise remained undisputed for years (WP:SILENT). Not only the cart is effectively being put before the horse, shifting where the onus lies, but the lack of explanations on the dispute of the reliability also makes it harder to offer satisfactory responses. No examples or reasons have been given for the removal of otherwise referenced content ([30]); When discussing the reliability of sources, what's common is to at least give examples on why it should be put into question. ([31]). Even the title of this comment, "verifikado.com appears unreliable and spam", suggests that this assessment is based on personal feelings rather than on policy.

Now the claim has been shifted from saying that not only the reference is unreliable, but spam, which is equally confusing considering how little presence on the project it has (9 pages to be precise, 6 of which are talk pages) and considering that the source's domain is currently dead.

Considering all of this, I kindly ask you to remove the inline tag and leave the text as it was before you started editing. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, no. [32] --Hipal (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Centralizing thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Verifikado. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)