Talk:Nicolás Maduro/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Dictator?

Recent edits have described Maduro as a dictator. While there are plenty of governments and sources suggesting this, there will always be those who will oppose calling him a dictator. Since articles such Fidel Castro and Kim Jong-un do not explicitly describe either leader as a "dictator", I think this should be discussed before further edits call Maduro a dictator. However, if Maduro even called himself as a dictator (which he sort of did), I still feel like there would be those opposed to it. The existing attributed sources calling Maduro a dictator are fine for the meantime, though.--ZiaLater (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Describing what other individuals and sources call him, as the article does right now, is perfectly adequate. Readers can draw their own conclusions as to whether such a description is valid. Until broad academic consensus exists that Maduro meets the definition of "dictator", it is not our place to make a judgement on the validity of such a statement.--Tdl1060 (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Alright, I agree Tdl1060. Thank you.--ZiaLater (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Dictator is not a qualifier that depend on political preferences to judge him, but in objective actions that break the constitutional separation of powers.

In this case it is pretty clear that Nicolas Maduro has broken the Constitutional framework of the country by calling a Constituent Assembly that no body else was requesting and through it bypassing the authority of the National Assembly in that way.

Hence, he has technically done a coup d'etat against the congress of his own country arranged elections in which only his party took part. Even the company that computed the voting has questioned the results and has reported massive fraud.

Such a marred election in which according with international observers it is likely that no more than 3'600,000 votes were computed was used to overthrown a National assembly that was elected by landslide with almost 8'000,000 votes. Moreover, this was done two weeks after a national referendum carried out by the opposition forces, that were majoritarian in the congress showed with 7,200,000 votes that Venezuelans want to revoke the mandate of Maduro.

The congress was not the only power that was overthrown by this tyrant and his court of corrupt crooks, the National prosecutor was also removed by the puppet Constituent Assembly. In the moment he removed the authority of the congress he was no longer President and became Dictator of Venezuela.

I am afraid that it does not look professional that Wikipedia accept debate on a subject that it is pretty straightforward clearly illegal, giving the benefit of the doubt to regime that is no longer democratic but totalitarian of only one party. Mr Maduro has been exposed and declared Dictator by the General Secretary of the American States Organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etrofimoff (talk • contribs) 03:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. You can change or add content as long as you back it up with reliable sources, although it's already explained in lead with proper attribution that Maduro is considered a dictator, specially after revoking democratic powers.--DarkKing Rayleigh (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is that we should one state things as facts then there is consensus in reliable sources for them and avoid original research, that is not make our own judgments on the facts. It's probably not clear when a president who rules by decree becomes a dictator as opposed to a general who seizes power. TFD (talk) 05:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Should we be categorizing him as a Jew?

The only source that he's of Jewish ancestry comes from an interview he gave... and it looks like he only said this to deflect criticism of antisemitism. This man's mouth is not a reliable source considering the things that have come out of it.HerbertMacuse (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@HerbertMacuse: This is a good point and should be looked at.--ZiaLater (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Enforcing Anglocentric cultural effeminacy on article as political bias

Currently, in the article, we have a political propaganda hit piece section under the title of supposed "homophobic" statements from Maduro. These statements from Maduro are, in the context of the Hispanic world, completely normal and not particularly controversial at all, as Machismo is part of their culture. A non-effeminised male in Latin America, calling somebody they wish to disrespect a "maricón" is completely run of the mill. This section doesn't take any of this into account at all. I get it, the section is meant to make Maduro look like a bad guy by appealing to liberal Anglocentric views of sexuality (where homosexuality is lionised) and the general Anglo-American cultural dislike of confident, masculine men, coupled with a side of Cold War-esque "evil commie dictator" fear-mongering thrown into the mix, but obviously this isn't inline with our WP:NPOV policies and so we need to review this content ASAP. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a lot of lazy personal opinion and prejudice in this argument above (as always). If you are proposing an amendment then ensure there is proper referencing and sourcing. It is your view that it is completely normal for presidents of South American states to make statements such as "they grab their visa and where the mess has to shove, insert the visa in the ass" or to refer to individuals as "big faggots" and opponents as "little princesses". If this is the case then provide a source to support your claim. Likewise that such interventions are not "controversial" - presumably by showing that they gave received NO COVERAGE in any South American press or media (which might be hard for you to do as one of the sources is El Universal). I also find it patronising - bordering on racist - to suggest all Venezuelan's swagger about in a culture of "machismo". You sound like someone writing a travelogue in the 1950s describing a colourful view of "the natives". But again find a source to back up your argument and we can think about how to include it. I'm also not terribly impressed by your ill-informed description of this as a "liberal Anglocentric views of sexuality" - half of the continent of South America recognises same-sex marriage (decided locally and not imposed from the outside where it is supposedly "lionised". LOL). I also increasingly despair of this pathetic pushing of personal hang-ups - homosexual men can be just as confident and masculine as heterosexual men. In any case you've not demonstrated any reason to suggest NPOV is being violated and as such I see no need to review the content. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
This article from a pious and emotive Anglo-American named Tim Padgett in TIME magazine discusses how in Latin American politics, across the political spectrum, this kind of discourse is mainstream in both socialist and conservative spheres. Presidents Rafael Correa in Ecuador, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Horacio Cartes in Paraguay have all made similar public statements to Maduro in a political context. True, there is an ongoing attempt a Yankification, particularly through the Achilles heels of Uruguay and Argentina (the most Anglo-Americanised states in Latin America), but this kind of language used by Maduro is neither uncommon, or particularly controversial to the public there. Claíomh Solais (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
However, you've shared a good article - lots of stuff in here to emphasise Maduro's homophobia and gay-bashing. Previously we've only hinted at this but now that we have a reliable source we can properly reinforce this in the article text. Well done! Contaldo80 (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Claíomh Solais Add the Machismo context to the article then. Michael O'hara (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Not on the basis of that article though as it says nothing about machismo. Will need another source. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Struck edit by sock of Apollo the Logician. Doug Weller talk 16:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Nicolás Maduro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Is the IPA transliteration for the name correct?

In the IPA transliteration at the top of the page, the "d" in Maduro is described as being pronounced "ð." I've never encountered outside of Spain, and from the Venezuelan media I have listened to it does not appear. Any comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandreDNF (talk • contribs) 20:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Oil prices

You removed an edit I did yesterday. Can you explain why? The current phrase is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Este0077 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Este0077: Not really. Chávez relied heavily on oil revenue, limited access to the USD which is necessary for imports and placed price controls on the economy which only increased inflation. Maduro has done more of the same.--ZiaLater (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
@ZiaLater: This is a oversimplified version, also partially inspired by opposition narrative (factors that influence inflation in Venezuela are way more complex and have a strong political origin). The oil price crisis has influenced the presidency of Nicolas Maduro since its beginning. The article fails to mention this, being one of the most important factors in Venezuelan economic export revenue crisis. Wikipedia should offer independent and complete information. Este0077 (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
@Este0077: All of the sourced info is from independent sources. It's not an opposition narrative, it is what the sources say. Yes, the oil prices have affected the crisis, but it is only one of the many nails in the coffin...--ZiaLater (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@ZiaLater: We perfectly know that there is a lot of controversial material in those "independent sources". The article presents a shallow caricature of the Venezuelan situation, inspired by US mainstream media (that present only the opposition narrative, ignoring many facts), while there are many serious independent resources that are not used. The economic and political situation is way more complex than a crisis simply related to bad government policies. The oil exports drop by more than 50% and they represent about 90-95% of all Venezuelan exports, which represent about 20% of the GDP. That alone shows that a fall of at least 10% of GDP (which is a catastrophic figure) is only due to oil prices. Any objective observer knows that Chavez failed in diversifying the economy, but many other macro-economic parameters were positive during his tenure (mostly due to high oil prices and strong public investment that led to a very high demand, compared to past Venezuelan history). Price controls is not a reason of the crisis. While it can be debatable it helps or not to solve the crisis, it is not the reason (and the inflation is another long and complex chapter, also related to political and financial crime, like currency extraction), and you can find this in many serious, unbiased sources. I am sorry to insist that the removal of the oil price crisis from the page is a clear evidence of poor knowledge of Venezuela's economy or a biased approach. I could think there is a will of using Wikipedia as a propaganda tool and not as a tool to understand the complexity of history and reality. Este0077 (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Important note: The discussion before this point has been held at User talk:Cambalachero. I have moved it here, where it belongs. Cambalachero (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course that the economy of Venezuela is influenced by external issues, which may harm it, and are beyond Venezuelan control. That is true for all countries, regardless of economic system (there are very few complete autarkies nowadays, if they exist at all). A drop in the export prices is indeed a bad thing for a country that exports a single thing, but that alone is not enough to cause a 3 digits inflation rating. Just check here, the common inflation rates in the world. The drop in oil prices is a worldwide thing, but Venezuela is completely alone in that 741%. The second highest is just 79%, and most countries hardly ever have it above 10%. Cambalachero (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Exact, and the article tries to guess instead of offering objective information to understand the complexity of the problem. It trivially relates inflation to government policies, showing a huge contradiction (based on US and media insistent claims, certainly not the best independent or scientific source on the subject): the "same" kind of policies were theoretically applied for more than 15 years, but high inflation started only in 2014, when oil income was cut by at least 50%. South American countries have huge inflation problems during economic crisis, due to the weakness of their currencies, low productivity and their dependence on USD. All of them have this problem and many of them have chronic inflation. The economic situation of Venezuela is far more complex than what is said in this article, that focus on national government issues but ignores Venezuela's geopolitical context: many elements here are completely ignored (financial crimes like currency extraction, Obama's executive orders and sanctions, distribution boycott of selected products, and more: this is rarely mentioned in US media). But I repeat: not mentioning AT LEAST the oil price crisis and its important consequences in an article about Nicolas Maduro and Venezuela means hiding reality. Este0077 (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

However, none of those other South American countries have inflation rates anywhere near Venezuela. A 40% inflation rate in Argentina is high, in itself and in comparison with most other countries in the world, but it's paradise in comparison with Venezuela. And even that 40% began to decrease once the populist Cristina Kirchner ended her term and the new president Mauricio Macri gradually changed the economic policies. So no, this is a problem of Venezuela, and Venezuela alone. As for the sanctions ordered by Obama, those were only against the leaders of the dictatorship, specifically meant not to make the humanitarian crisis even worse. Removing visas from a handful of people and confiscating their private properties have zero impact in the national economy of Venezuela. Cambalachero (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Este0077 I disagree PROFOUNDLY with that written aboce about inflation rates decrease with the new president Mauricio Macri. Not only does not, but Argentina new policy is based on taking debt to ridículous levels, which economists says is leading to a disaster, for the obvious reason we do not produce dollars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.194.219.157 (talk) 08:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Este0077 I agree. Venezuela (which is not under a "dictatorship") is under an economic attack to thrown Maduro's government, from people and organizations inside and outside the country; if you had the sources you should edit the article, and add new illegal sanctions os Trump's government. Telesur has enough info on this. Thanks.

Agustin6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Maduro's claims that Capriles will be killed by CIA

This article is part of a new talking point by Maduro, claiming that Capriles will be killed by CIA [1], yet Capriles said openly that if he something happens to him, that is it Maduro's doing. [2]

This is especially foreboding and strange because Capriles is the favorite from international bodies (non communists ones) so why on earth would Maduro find anything about Capriles' death, unless it was merely unfounded and used as a veiled threat.

Maduro on 3/16 actually shut down an airport that Capriles was using that morning. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.50.93 (talk • contribs) 17 March 2013

You need a secondary source that makes those conclusions. TFD (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Página 12

Página 12 is not a reliable source. I have detailed several reasons for it here. Cambalachero (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

You need sources that draw the same conclusion. Most newspapers endorse electoral candidates and your argument seems to be that since they endorsed the center-left in Chile instead of the center-right they are organs of government propaganda, whereas if they had supported the center right, they would have been a reliable source. Página/12 is run by professional journalists and its reporting is cited in reliable sources. You would need a source that says they are not reliable for facts. And very little of this article is sourced to them anyway. TFD (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Exactly, and I would want to keep it that way. There's a user trying to insert their nonsenses, such as the alleged "economic war" of the Us against Venezuela. And you're right, having a point of view does not mean being unreliable. It is needed that they go one step further and try to modify or conceal the actual facts in order to advance their point of views. And they have already done it, several times. Cambalachero (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image

Please keep the present infobox image until there is a new, equally neutral one. Before changing current infobox image, Please discuss here.----ZiaLater (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Section about son controversy

The section about Maduro's son being a moron has no relevance to Maduro himself. Maduro is not even mentioned in the paragraph. Its inclusion is clearly meant to make Maduro look bad. Totally biased editing.ApolloCarmb (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC) Struck content from confirmed sockpuppet, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE

@ApolloCarmb: "Maduro is not even mentioned in the paragraph".
Please read the information in the article more carefully:

"The incident caused outrage among Venezuelans, who believed this to be hypocritical of President Maduro, especially since many Venezuelans were experiencing hardships due to the poor state of the economy and Maduro's public denouncements of capitalism"

The sources and the information presented in this article all surround the perceived hypocrisy and the following scandal that involved President Maduro. Venezuelans and the international media pinned this directly on President Maduro. Your attempts of whitewashing "articles related to socialist figures" could also be accused of "totally biased editing". Please, move on.----ZiaLater (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Mainstream media vs conventional media

  1. "Mainstream media" is pipe linked so it makes no sense to use mainstream media over conventional media.
  2. Mainstream media is the term used in the source provided.
  3. ZiaLater has hilariously claimed that using the term "Mainstream media" (an established term) is copyright. Using one phrase (mainstream media) which is an established neologism is not copyright. The term mainstream media is used in multiple articles (just search mainstream media in the wiki search bar).ApolloCarmb (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Struck content from confirmed sockpuppet, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE
I am paraphrasing the TeleSUR article. I do not understand why you suddenly agree with using mainstream media now when I have explained this twice. In both edits, you have only tried to whitewash the wording and only say “some”. TeleSUR, mainly funded by Venezuela, states themselves that mainstream media describes Maduro as a “dictator”. I think the current wording makes sense.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
You just completely ignored everything I said, very telling. You are not a native or fluent english speaker, therefore you may not be aware that conventional and mainstream are not synonymous and mean different things.ApolloCarmb (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Struck content from confirmed sockpuppet, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE
Conventional - 1: “based on or in accordance with what is generally done or believed” 2: “following traditional forms and genres - synonyms: orthodox, traditional, established, well established, accepted, received, mainstream”. Please stop harassing user on their English proficiency...----ZiaLater (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Spelling + Grammar mistakes

In the section about his birth certificate, there is 23November ,962 instead of November 23, 1962. Can we fix this? Thanks!CobaltBlue101 (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@CobaltBlue101: Fixed, thanks for notifying! --Jamez42 (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2018

there is an "on March 2018" that should be "in March 2018 104.35.236.49 (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Muh "homophobia" section revisited

This section is still problematic and undue weight.

Firstly, it is pure synthesis because the only source which actually uses the term "homophobia" (whatever that is supposed to mean) in relation to Maduro's comments is the HuffPost, a bourgeois liberal publication from the United States, whose founder, Arianna Huffington, was intellectually groomed at elite British intelligence linked educational establishments. The United States and the United Kingdom are deadly enemies of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, so they have a vested interest in attacking one of the people resisting their machinations through Anglo-approved medias. The other sources simply report what Maduro said.

Secondly, Nicolás Maduro is an alpha male and a socialist from Latin America. As we have demonstrated previously, this kind of discourse, refering to your political opponents as a "maricón" is widely used in Latin America, across political lines and is more or less considered culturally acceptable. The homosexual lifestyle is not widely accepted as desirable outside of the North American and Western European bourgeois class, so we should not be using Wikipedia biographies as an attack platform, using an artificial term created by the American psychologist George Weinberg, to pathologise leaders who are resisting the Anglo-American Empire. Maduro is under no obligation whatsoever to espouse a pro-homosexual POV and to claim otherwise here is flagrant Anglocentrism. Claíomh Solais (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Attacking the source instead of the information is not helpful, I don't think it's how WP:RELIABLE it's argued. As a Venezuelan I can tell that "marico", without a n, is much more common and more or less means "dude", but "maricón" is a much stronger word, and you can see in the speeches that the terms are used despectively.[4][5] Nothing in the Time's source stated says that this is "more or less considered culturally acceptable". It isn't. It should also be noted that this is said on live television and violates the Ley Resorte (Law on Social Responsibility on Radio and Television), which prohibits coarse language in national television and has been used in the past to censor and shut down several TV and radio stations. This is not the only time this has happened: Pedro Carreño, former congressman and minister as well as current member of the Constituent Assembly, also called Capriles "faggot" during a National Assembly session,[6] and there are plenty of other examples where government officials insult during speeches. I would like to hear other editors thoughts, but the current arguments don't address the problems and don't explain how to solve them.--Jamez42 (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
For anyone interested in the section, after looking in the archives I can see Solais already opened this same discussion with the same arguments months ago. They were also indefinitely blocked for several reasons, namely WP:NOTHERE. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Policies

The paragraph on Policies opens with the assertion that Maduro continued the poorly planned policies of his predecessor.

This reads like an editorial, not an informational article. Noahskocilich (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

"Attempted Assassination"? (August 2018)

Regarding this section added to the main article: At present there is precisely zero video footage of said drones, only smoke coming from within a building. Taking such evidence as has been provided thus far as a proven "Attempted assassination" does not appear to be NPOV, but a deliberate taking of sides in a politically-charged event with opponents being rounded up. Harami2000 (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

re write whole thing

from the introduction to the end this article is an abomination. how about at least trying to be objective. I well summarize what it says Intro: maduro is amazing a bunch of rich people dont like him they are wrong maduro is awesome. Policies: maduro is amazing. this bad stuff happend. it was because of the united states. maduro is awesome Criticism Maduro is amazing haters gonna hate. Maduro is awesome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.14.75 (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

National Electoral Council

In the intro it says "electoral authority". The official name of such government body in Venezuela is the National Electoral Council. I suggest the usage of the official name.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2018

I don't know if you're the 63rd or 43rd president. i think you're the 43rd, i want to edit that. Milly1114! (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 03:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6405051/Murder-rate-soars-Venezuela-forcing-population-extreme-precautions-amid-shortages.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Chikatilo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0465494/

FIRST 15 MINUTES IS RELEVANT

86.148.146.108 (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Please be more clear. What are you trying to say? Cambalachero (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2019

which had the lowest voter turnout in Venezuela's modern history.[27] replaced with: which had the lowest voter turnout in Venezuela's modern history [27], although similar to many western countries such as voter turnout in the United States [Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections]. 193.15.95.2 (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - Violates WP:UNDUE. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose– Why make a comparison to other countries when we can make a comparison to Venezuelan elections?----ZiaLater (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. DannyS712 (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2019

Add 'Succeeded by Juan Guaidó' because Juan is the new Interim President of Venezuela. Ballers19 (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The dispute is mentioned in the article and the infobox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2019

Add 'Succeeded by Juan Guaido" under the Presidency description Ballers19 (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The dispute is mentioned in the article and the infobox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2019

He's currently Not the president of Venezuela. He proclaimed himself illegally and the Supreme Court who recognized him is also illegimite. The legislative power is the only one legit on Venezuela.

I request please to remove the title of President on this Sir. He's not the president of Venezuela. He's not even Venezuelan (I have no proof of this, sadly). Unpelabolas (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose - His status as president is disputed. Regardless of the perceived illegality or illegitimacy, he does have at least partial control over the country and is at least partially recognized as president. I believe that an explicit statement of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of his rule is a violation of WP:NPOV. Instead, the article might be better suited to state the challenges to his legitimacy and their basis.  Matt Sylvester  Talk  04:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - @Unpelabolas: And in turn the Supreme Tribunal has a lot of criticism of being illegitimate, most of the justices do not meet the requirements for holding office, including the lack of convictions, lack of political affiliation or the years of experience established in the law. Guaidó took oath under Article 233 of the constitution, and given all these disagreements it's unlikely that anything besides what is currently in the article will meet WP:NPOV. --Jamez42 (talk) 09:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: The dispute is mentioned in the article and the infobox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2019

ADD a AKA section under name section. Commonly Referred as "Maduro CONOETUMADRE" by the Venezuelan people 2Sheps (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose Not encyclopedic. --Jamez42 (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2019

Nicolas Maduro is not the president of Venezuela Zjv2019 (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per previous edit requests above, the dispute is mentioned in the article already. clpo13(talk) 17:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Please change Nicolás Maduro Moros (/məˈdʊəroʊ/; Spanish: [nikoˈlas maˈduɾo ˈmoɾos];[2] born 23 November 1962) is a Venezuelan politician who has served as the 46th President of Venezuela since 2013 to Nicolas Maduro Moros is a supposedly Colombian national who has served the Cuban-Castro regime and became their appointed Dictator in Venezuela. Zjv2019 (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. clpo13(talk) 17:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

removed - WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM the talk pages are for the discussion of Reliable Sources for the improvement of the articles, not a forum to discuss the article's subject

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2019

international organisms -> international organs

(who writes this stuff?) 174.22.192.38 (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Changed to "organizations". Roadguy2 (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2019

The first sentence says "Nicolás Maduro Moros is a Venezuelan politician who, since 2003, serves as the 46th President of Venezuela." Please change 2003 to 2013 in this sentence. Elsewhere in the article it states that Maduro assumed office in 2013. Bgreilly (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Roadguy2 (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Maudro was re-inaugurated before the Venezuelan Supreme Court

Please include this.[7]68.47.64.121 (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2019

Nicolas Maduro is not the current President of Venezuela. The United States and many other countries have deemed his presidency as unconstitutional and therefore illegitimate. The current president of Venezuela is the interim president, Juan Guiado, who will remain president until the corrupt illegitmate government is overthrown and proper constitutional elections can be held. Aprato.barton (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Also, the situation is still very much in flux. Wait for the final resolution. 50.111.22.143 (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Public Radio International

Interview of Maduro former chief of staff, points that should be worked in here: he explains some of Maduro's strengths in earlier years. https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-03-04/former-chief-staff-maduro-focused-consolidating-his-power

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done [8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

De facto? Why now?

Recommend "de facto" not be added to the intro. It doesn't add anything to the article, particular since it wasn't in their since 2013. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Howdy. Will you please stop adding 'de facto' to Maduro's article intro. It doesn't add anything to the article. If you want to put disputed after January 23, 2019, then fine. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I explained the reasons why Maduro is considered a de facto president in the edit summary. If you can provide arguments of how he's in office de jure or legitimately, it'd be much appreciated. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
De facto wasn't added before January 23, 2019 so why add it now? Just because of events these last few days, one doesn't retroactively question his entire tenure as president. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@GoodDay: If I may, why not? The answer is probably that a consensus was harder to find that after January 23, meaning that this is a good moment to include the wording. Also, "Nevermind, since you're not going to listen"? Please let me remind you to assume good faith. Best wishes. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Best to let others chime in, on whether we 'now' need "de facto" in the lead. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I deleted "the facto" in the intro: I believe there is no reason for "de facto" to be there. His presidency has been undisputed at the very least until Januray 23rd. After that, Guaidò proclaimed himself interim President, which is a charge that does not exist in the Consitution of Venezuela. The partial international recongnition he gained does not change this. Lpcdc3 (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Lpcdc3: I'm afraid to say that you're terribly mistaken. Article 233 of the Venezuelan constitution clearly states that a interim presidency has to be assumed by the president of the National Assembly, which is Guaido's case. This means two things: Guaidó didn't "proclaim himself" and the charge exists in the constitution. It's also false that Maduro's presidency was "undisputed" until Janaury 23; besides the first arguments that I gave before, his first presidential elections had several claims of fraud, only that not as much as the last ones. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Article 233 says that, if the President of the Republic is declared not fit for his charge by the National Assembly before being sworn in as President then the President of the National Assembly is to temporarily substitute the President. His charge is never described as "interim presidency" and he is never defined "president-elect", which is the charge Guaidò was sworn in for, just like the "transition government" Guaidò sworn to insitute is never mentioned in the Consitution. But this is not the main point. The main point is that the National Assembly declared Maduro decayed on January 15th, but it had already been stripped of all power by the TSJ on January the 5th. Also, even if we wrongly assumed the National Assembly to be in its full power, Guaidò still wouldn't be President. Article 233 says the the President of the National Assembly only becomes president if the elected President wasn't sworn in before he was declared decayed by the Assembly. As a matter of fact, though, Maduro was sworn in on January the 10th, five days before the National Assembly declared him decayed. According to Article 233, then, Maduro's vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, should have been named President until elections were held. That's why I still consider Maduro to be both de facto and de jure the President of Venezuela. Lpcdc3 (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
"de facto" is appropriate if just for the simple fact that he is challenged, that there are legislative actions performed by someone else, but he still controls the military and possibly some state assets. Whether he agrees or not, that is de facto - holding the power while others hold claim to the position. Kingsif (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
"de facto" implies he is not president "de jure". The matter is disputed, and that's what should be on the page. Lpcdc3 (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Lpcdc3: Huh, if the charge of interim presidency isn't in the Venezuelan constitution, what happens when the office of the presidency is vacant? What about the recent interim presidents in Venezuela, such as Octavio Lepage, Ramón José Velásquez, Diosdado Cabello or even Maduro himself? Of course Guaidó isn't president elect because there weren't elections, but he's the current acting president. If we talk about the TSJ, then we'd start a lengthy discussion about its questioned legitimacy, just like Maduro's. The Tribunal was appointed by the lame duck National Assembly just days after the last parliamentary elections among several irregularities, including the violation of the period of challenges, its lack of responses and the omission of the final selection of the candidates. Not only that, but none of the justices had the years of experience or met the requirements for holding office, including lack of convictions or political affiliation. Did you know that during this appointment a member of the pro government Assembly even voted for himself? Regarding the decayed status of Maduro, the now opposition National Assembly already declared Maduro decayed three years ago. On the other hand, the same article specifies that the vice president shall assume the presidency only if Maduro is declared decayed in the first four years of his government, which is clearly not the case here. And all of this is only if we consider the legal jargon and put aside other reasons why his requirements for holding office are not met, which are also included in the article, such as his nationality, or for instance his human rights abuses. According to Article 350 of the constitution, Maduro should be rejected as president. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The United States and a few of its close allies are not competent to determine Venezuelan constitutional law. Even if they were, we do not describe leaders as de facto when they lack legitimacy. We say for example that Tsai Ing-wen is the president of the Republic of China, even though very few countries recognize her government. And we don't call Trump the de facto president of the U.S. even though his election was rigged by the Russian secret police, according to many. TFD (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: That is a strawman fallacy, nobody has mentioned the recognition by other countries or its "determination of the constitutional law". It was the National Assembly, which is the last government branch to have been elected. In any case, defining the countries that have rejected Maduro's legitimacy as "the United States and a few of its close allies" is downplaying them a lot; 19 countries voted in favor in the OAS to declare Maduro illegitimate.--Jamez42 (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
When you say that the speaker is the president because the election was invalid, that is a matter of constitutional law. In fact it does not appear to be what the constitution says. The recognition of Guaidó has indeed so far come from the U.S., Canada and a number of Latin American countries. While 19 OAS countries voted that Maduro's election was illegimate (with 6 against, 8 abstentions and one absent), they have not yet voted to recognize Guaidó. I don't think we can decide that Guaidó is the de jure president until there is consensus for it. The U.S. + 11 other countries (last time I looked) does not represent a consensus among the world's nations. TFD (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: My point precisely is that the determination of the Venezuelan constitutional law doesn't come from countries abroad, such as the United States, but from the National Assembly. I already explained above that Guaidó took oath under Article 233 of the constitution, besides Articles 333 and 350 if you wish. I don't get why the decision of a government branch and its legal basis is not given importance determining the status of the presidency, and this is only speaking about Guaidó; you can also argue that the presidency is being usurped or that there is a "power vacuum", but there is way more consensus of the illegitimacy of Maduro, which is the subject of this talk page and this discussion. We don't need to determine if Guaidó is the de jure president in order to know if Maduro holds the office de facto.--Jamez42 (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
When you say that the speaker is tne president because the election was invalid, that is a matter of constitutional law. The recognition of Guaidó has indeed so far come from the U.S., Canada and a number of Latin American countries. While 19 OAS countries voted that Maduro's election was illegimate (with 6 against, 8 abstentions and one absent), they have not yet voted to recognize Guaidó. I don't think we can decide that Guaidó is the de jure president until there is consensus for it. The U.S. + 11 other countries (last time I looked) does not represent a consensus among the world's nations. In any case, the appropriate guide is what reliable sources say. When they start referring to Maduro as the de facto president, then we can follow suit. Ironically, the last time a speaker replaced a president, in Honduras, media referred to the speaker as the de facto president.[9] TFD (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: You have just repeated your last message for the most part, without adressing the issues that I mentioned or offering a rebuttal. We're discussing Maduro's condition as de facto president, not Guaido's. However, I'll be happy to provide WP:RS:EFE, El Mundo, El Imparcial, El Diario, El Tiempo Latino, El Tiempo, Vanguardia and MercoPress, just to mention a few. I can even provide reports of NGOs or the OAS explaining how Maduro has growingly lost legitimacy.[10][11][12] Lastly, I don't know why the situation is compared to Honduras' given its huge differences. Even though the coup in Honduras started due to Zelaya's refusal to comply with the Supreme Court's, Zelaya was forcibly ousted by the military, allowing Roberto Micheletti to assume the presidency by force. None of this is similar to the current scenario in Venezuela. The most recent example of a de facto government is Pedro Carmona's, because Chávez was ousted too in a 2002 coup. But it seems Maduro hasn't been forced out, has he? --Jamez42 (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The sources do not support the proposed wording. The first source EFE says that experts have advised the legislature to declare Maduro a de facto president. The second source, the article in El Imparcial (which appears to be an editorial, hence not a reliable source) says that Venezuela is a de facto totalitarian regime. But whatever it says, it was written during Madura's first term when even the U.S. State Department considered him president de jure. What you need to show is that reliable sources routinely describe him as the de facto president as in for example, "the U.S. Secretary of State today issued a warning to the de facto president of Venezuela." Of course nothing prevents the article from mentioning the constitutional controversy. It would be helpful too if you could use English language sources. TFD (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: What about the rest of the sources, then? Or the reports in any case? --Jamez42 (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

NPOV Discussion

@Jamez42: | We clearly have a disagreement on what constitutes a neutral point of view. All of my edits had citations attached and most of them also had relevant quotes supporting the wording of the article. To avoid edit wars, let's open a discussion here about what you feel about my changes constitutes NPOV violations, keeping in mind my edits were intended to create a NPOV by providing contrasting and third-party sources and views to the article which don't exist in your version, and mine uses language specifically found within the sources. --Redratatoskr (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Redratatoskr: Hi. I have to admit that my decision to revert might have been rushed and was also motivated by the now closed sockpuppet investigation, not to mention the size of the edits. I agree with and appreciate most of the changes made, only with few exceptions. I should first express that I still worry about the use of weasel wording, which would be the one that is unreferenced.
  • Besides that Twitter is not the most appropriate reference, Bertucci's quote likely constitutes cherrypicking. He "accepted" the presidential elections results, but the rest of his quote explains that he heavily criticized the process: "I accept the results of the re-elected government, but under what concept did it win? I denounce the strategy implemented under bribery and manipulation with red points and the mockery with the hunger of thousands of Venezuelans in the polling stations." In other words, Bertucci basically accepted that Maduro was reelected in an unfair election. I should also mention that Henri Falcón, Maduro's main opponent, disregarded the results even before they were announced because of the abundance of irregularites. This was widely explained last year when the article was created and the election took place.
  • I also had to delete the Human Development Index reference because it is undue and outdated. In 2018, Venezuela fell 16 positions below is said Index.[13] In the future I would like to ask for caution when making these references. Susana Raffalli, a Venezuelan nutritionist and expert in the area, has also explained many times that government officials usually report outdated data in international organizations, which is the case with UNICEF, for example.[14] In other cases, the government has stopped mentioned organizations and figures that previously were the pride for the officials, which is the case of the FAO. I will quote Rafalli on what I think sums up the situation for 2018 very nicely: "The FAO stressed that the increase in hunger in Venezuela is a determining factor in the recession of the entire region. The PAHO urged to take urgent measures to face the increase of diphtheria, malaria and measles cases, and the UNDP says that we fell 16 steps in human development. End of the week."[15] --Jamez42 (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jamez42: I can definitely understand not wanting the edits to go through without the sockpuppet investigation having been done first, so no hard feelings about that, and I'm glad we're able to talk this out together in a way that's mutually satisfactory and cordial. In terms of your disagreements with the weasel wording, I can understand why you feel that, for example, changing "condemnation" to "controversy" might feel unfair. One thing to keep in mind is in the section about Weasel Words it says, "views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source." So I think in this context, my edits as mentioned are justified because (at the very least) third-party sources referenced in the article mention both anti- and pro- government arguments as well as both side's supporters around the globe, with EU and US-aligned nations backing the opposition and Russia, China and leftist nations generally backing the government. That's why I believe controversy is more accurate than condemnation, since condemnation heavily implies there are no nations around the world which support the government's claims when there are, if that makes sense.
In terms of Bertucci's quote, I don't exactly read it the same way you are, I think a lot of replies show that he does in fact recognize the results as legitimate even if he denounces the bribery and underhanded tactics which is why many replies on the Tweet are angry with him for accepting the results at all -- although I want to be flexible and reasonable, so I'm okay with you removing that reference to the tweet I made in the article and the sentence I put in.
About the HDI -- I don't see any reason to off-hand accept oppositon claims about government statistics being manipulated without proof or evidence. If that were the case, why would Venezuela's HDI have fallen at all if the government were lying about their own HDI indicators? Furthermore, the UN source itself is third-party and objective, and even though it did fall, the most up-to-date report cited in the article you referenced in your reply to me (http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2018_human_development_statistical_update.pdf) still clearly has Venezuela in the "high human development category," and your own source also shows them in the Top 10 for Latin American countries in HDI. Plus, I think it's wrong to accept Raffalli's claim that Venezuela fell 16 spaces in the HDI (it did) but then go on to say we can't trust the report. If we can't trust the report, how could we trust that they fell 16 spaces in it? Clearly Raffalli accepts the veracity of the report, plus I think it paints a more accurate picture to mention both Venezuela's high HDI but also the misery index (itself problematic, but I'm willing to compromise and not make a fuss about the misery index if the HDI is allowed to be mentioned).
It seems we've made a lot of progress together on this issue, let me know how you feel about these points and if we come to a final consensus then we can edit the page to implement the agreed changes so that we're both content with the neutral point of view. :) --Redratatoskr (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Redratatoskr: I feel that we agree in most of the points, so I'll answer to the last point. I have to emphasize, just like I did in the talk page of Maduro's inauguration, that criticizing the government, or in Raffalli's case being a human rights activist, does not mean being part of a political opposition. This arguments have been presented in the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, which has had several audiences about Venezuela, even more since the government does not allow the Commission to enter in the country since 2002, and which in turn can be watched in YouTube; I think they might have subtitles in English. Now, I didn't say that the report can't be trusted, only that it was undue and outdated, and I quoted Raffalli mentioning how this has happened with UNICEF. Despite the crisis, the FAO also published figures that the government was proud about until not long ago. When the numbers weren't so flattering and they started to reflect the crisis, government officials just stopped quoting them, which was something that was mentioned and criticized in one of the last sessions of the Comission. So why is Venezuela still in the high human development category? I have no idea, but it is alright because giving my opinion would be original research; I just think that it is something that should be looked into. My best guess is that, as I understand, the numbers from 2018 aren't reflected. There's overwhelming evidence of the humanitarian crisis that Venezuela is undergoing provided both by national NGOs and international organizations alike: hyperinflation, rampant crime and food and medicine shortages, just to mention few. Even government officials have admitted the grave situation, only that pointing to different causes and magnitude, and the social programs started by Chávez are inefficient in light of the new situation. If you wish, another source besides the misery index can be included to reflect the chaos, but I don't see how a "even though", "but" or "however" can be included. The situation is a disaster from every point of view. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The most egregious problem of this article is that it calls him a dictator in the first sentence. This is a very charged negtive term, and people who advocate for its inclusion in the first sentence should read WP:YESPOV. Emass100 (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

No mention of Maduro, moved to talk

I don't know why this is in this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Secretary of the President investigation

In December 2015 following controversial investigations of money laundered drug money by the Bal Harbour Police Department and Glades County Police without the cooperation of the United States Department of Justice, a report from Miami Herald revealed that much of the drug money was ultimately funneled from multiple banks into the Venezuelan Banesco Bank with some of the largest payments wired to the bank. It was found that William Amaro Sanchez, a secretary and longtime friend of Maduro who was described as his "right-hand-man", had over $200,000 of the drug money transferred to his account. Juan Carlos Escort [es], head of Banesco, denied the allegations, although unnamed Banesco employees told The Miami Herald that it was Amaro's account and provided information that included his account number, full name and Venezuelan government identification number.[1][2]

Following these revelations, Panamanian lawyer and politician Guillermo Cochez called on Panama's Public Ministry to investigate accounts in Banesco related to the Venezuelan government, including accounts belonging to Willam Amaro Sanchez and also possible accounts belonging to relatives of President Maduro's wife, Cilia Flores. After Flores' nephews were arrested by the United States Drug Enforcement Administration, it was discovered that one of the arrested nephews, Efraín Campo Flores, owned a Panamanian company, with Cilia Flores and other relatives belonging to the company's board of directors.[3]

References

  1. ^ Sallah, Michael; Delgado, Antonio (26 December 2015). "Bal Harbour to Caracas: Millions in drug money". The Miami Herald. Retrieved 20 May 2016.
  2. ^ Sallah, Michael (28 December 2015). "Bank denies report that Maduro aide was sent drug money". The Miami Herald. Retrieved 20 May 2016.
  3. ^ "Denuncian en Panamá a Maduro y a su esposa por posible blanqueo de dólares". El Nuevo Herald. 4 January 2016. Retrieved 20 May 2016.

Tortured prose, overcited

No wonder people think this is biased; the writing is dreadful, too much is in the lead, and everything is overcited. These two sentences are tortured, and need to be totally rewritten:

  • On 20 May 2018, Maduro was reelected into the presidency. Most noteworthy opposition leaders were jailed, exiled or forbidden to run, there was no international observation, election audit was carried out by the regime itself, and scare tactics suggested people that they may lose their jobs or social welfare if they did not vote for Maduro.[18][19] which had the lowest voter turnout in Venezuela's modern history.[20]

MUCH easier just to say that he was elected under what was WIDELY considered a fraudulent election, and there are gazillions of high quality sources that say exactly that. The problem here is trying to shove too much information into the lead. MANY sources say the election was fraudulent ... all of the reasons don't need to be shoved in here. The reader is left confused. Too much for me to fix in one editing session. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The lead is dreadful. I did what I could, but this lead is so verbose, so overcited, has so much unnecessary detail, poorly explained, not in order ... that I can't fix it in one editing session, and I am not surprised readers a) are not taking from it the information they need, and b) believe it to be POV because it is so tortured. I see nothing in the lead that is not mainstream reliably sourced (or sourceable), but anyone who reads if may justifiably think it is POV, simply because of how tortured it is. Needs major fixing. Keep it simple; if it can't be said with one or two citations, it is too tortured and should not be there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Done for now

As of this version, I am stopping for now. The article is still a wreck, but I have at least cut the size, and gotten a cleaner table of contents, so that further work can be done. I tried to move all of the overcited, unattributed text out of the lead to the bottom of this section; it still needs lots of work. I cut most of the Presidency stuff to Presidency of Nicolás Maduro (since what was here anyway said ... nothing). Most of what should be written here just isn't here-- it is scattered across other Venezuelan articles, it seems no one ever took an interest in improving this article, but that is all I can do for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nicolás_Maduro/Archive_2&oldid=1120163038"