Talk:President of Venezuela

Juan Guaido is the Recognized President of Venezuela

It's time to change the President to Juan Guaido. Most English countries have recognized him as the legitimate president of Venezuela, also Maduros blocked us (Wikipedia) from Venezuela! DoctorSpeed^{Want to talk?} 00:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2019

Juan Guaido is the new president of Venezuela as in 01/11/2019 2601:58A:8280:1560:250B:ABCA:2AD8:7936 (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

edit request

the OAS and the Group of Lima had already requested that the power be turned over to the National Assembly after january 10th. According to the constitution, the president of the National Assembly can assume the presidency in this case, so the part where it says "By all international accounts, Venezuela has been without a President". As for sources, there are a lot on here. Sandubadear (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2019

Nicolas Maduro is the president of Venezuela: https://noticias.uol.com.br/internacional/ultimas-noticias/2019/01/13/presidente-do-parlamento-opositor-juan-guaido-e-preso-na-venezuela.htm

200.163.149.205 (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done as POV-pushing. Please establish a consensus before using {{edit semi-protected}}. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2019

Due to the ongoing protests and vote of the assembly there will be constant edit wars and vandalism. IsraeliIdan (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

I have removed the details around the current incumbent from the Infobox as this has been the result of edit-warring over the past several days with it reverting between both candidates. I think the lead of the article accurately reflects the current status but it isn't possible to achieve this kind of nuance in the infobox. If anybody has a better solution while retaining WP:NPOV feel free to jump in. Once there's a clear consensus (either here or in sources) for the president, we should restore the incumbent details to the infobox. Darren-M (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. The prior solution was to have Maduro in the infobox with "disputed" added in paranteses, and a hyperlink ffrom disputed to 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. Currently it appears our other articles has Maduro as president, and per #NotNews, I don't think it would be wrong for Wikipedia to have Maduro as president for the time being. But your solution seems very good for avoiding edit wars. Iselilja (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Your solution makes sense and my preference would also be to have the currently sworn individual in the infobox (i.e. Maduro) as to me it seems that we should reflect the current legal status, but I don't think it'd survive even with the semi-prot that has been added. If you wanna give it a shot, feel free. Darren-M (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

It's inaccurate; at the present, Maduro is still the de facto president. And so with the question of de jure presidency currently disputed I think the previous status (Maduro with a disputed tag) is more representative of a neutral assessment of the current situation. Simonm223 (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
Presidente de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela
Presidential Standard of Venezuela
Incumbent Nicolás Maduro (partially recognized) Juan Guaidó (partially regognized)

We at the Spanish Wikipedia decided to include both Maduro and Guaidó as the President "with limited recognition" as the most neutral denomination, rather than de facto and de jure.

|incumbent       = <!--
:: Nicolás Maduro
-->[[Nicolás Maduro]]<br><small><!--
:: Link to 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis
-->([[2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis|partially recognized]])<!--
:: Notes about who support Maduro
--></small>{{refn|group="n"|Recognized by the [[2017 Constituent National Assembly|Constituent National Assembly]], the [[Supreme Tribunal of Justice (Venezuela)|]], the [[National Bolivarian Armed Forces of Venezuela|National Bolivarian Armed Forces]] and arround 23 countries, including [[Russia]] and [[China]].}}<br><!--
:: Juan Guaidó
-->[[Juan Guaidó]]<br><small>(partially regognized)<!--
:: Notes about who support Guadió
--></small>{{refn|group="n"|Recognized by the [[National Assembly (Venezuela)|]], the [[Organization of American States]] and 16 countries, including the [[United States]].}}

As I already suggested in another related article, do you thing is a good idea to include the both ones instead of just the "disputed" text? --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Honestly I think Guaidó's self-inauguration is a sham and the situation on the ground suggests this is likely to be just yet another failed coup, with a bunch of Americans and other associated pro-imperial hawks jumping on the first sign of weakness to attempt to rewrite all of history. So no, I don't think it's a good idea. But removing Maduro's name altogether is nothing more than opportunistic revisionism, so... Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

This thread is not for discussing about the legitimacy, but for coordinating how to keep the information neutral and up to date.

If we're incurring in opinions about the legitimity, Maduro, technically, also self-claimed, as his period already ended, and the Constitution forbids to hold the presidency again. The Constitution is pretty clear, and any pro-someone comment is biased and must be taken into account carefully.

But Wikipedia is no the one who should claim who is the legitimate president, so, as I suggested, both should be included in the infobox, both with "limited recognition", adding note explaining who're supporting they respectively and a link to 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, to keep the neutrality that, unfortunately, always is ignored and cuestionated. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

(Undid revision 882330377)

I undid revision 882330377 which stated: "and most in the rest of the world not taking the position publicly and continuing to recognise the Maduro government."

A. This runs counter to well respected sources such as the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-47053701 Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-24/trump-support-sparks-global-backing-of-venezuela-s-guaido-map Foreign Policy: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/02/06/maduro-vs-guaido-a-global-scorecard-map-infographic/ Reuters: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-venezuela-politics-maduro-guaido-fact/factbox-guaido-vs-maduro-who-backs-venezuelas-two-presidents-idUKKCN1PI1LH

etc.

B. It's speculation, which is not what wiki is for.

C. The line of reasoning is faulty. The line of reasoning is: "The fact is that the rest of the world keeps recognising Maduro. Use of the word "neutral" is misleading - they actively maintain diplomatic relations with the current government." The problem with this line of reasoning is that much of the world doesn't have formal diplomatic relations in the form of diplomatic missions to maintain. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diplomatic_missions_of_Venezuela So there's nothing to recognize. Take South Sudan for instance, it has no mission in Venezuela, nor does it have a Venezuelan diplomatic mission in Juba, so it's speculation to say that since they didn't publicly come out in favour of Guaidó they must be in favor of Maduro. There's nothing to recognize. Now if another random country which lacks a Venezuelan mission, such as Tanzania, came out in support of Maduro or Guaidó by all means, but to say no comment thus Maduro is speculation and mind reading which isn't what Wiki is for. Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, South Sudan is such a great example of a country with a vast network of diplomatic missions!

Here is the correct link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diplomatic_missions_in_Venezuela

I agree that this would require to do a country count, which would border WP:OR, so I am not going to revert. But the current wording misses the point in the fact that the countries that maintain diplomatic relations with the current government are not neutral but implicitely recognise it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC) ~

Incumbent for both presidents with limited recognition

As I suggested at Venezuela (per the concensus reached at the Spanish Wikipedia, the incumbent status for Venezuela has been changed to establish both Maduro and Guaidó as the president, with limited recognition. So, I strongly recommend to establish it here, too (the term "disputed" is quite accurate, but including both presidents says the same but better explained, and seems to be more neutral). --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I changed it to say disputed with a link to the crisis page for the following reasons:

• Including both with the same text gives a false impression that the two have roughly the same status when they do not
• Guaidó is only claiming to be acting president
• Infoboxes are not ideal for conveying nuance because we don't have enough space to get into the above and other issues — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

cmonghost, your third rationale seems enough to keep the incumbent as "disputed". However, the others two are questionable and somewhat biased:

• Both are the "Presidente de la República bolivariana de Venezuela" with "limited recognition"
• The Constitution of Venezuela allows Guardidó to take office as President, in the absence of a legitime one, as the Maduro's period already ended, and the Constitution prohibits taking the office again, unless by force (aka. becoming a dictator and changing the Constitution for his convenience). --Amitie 10g (talk) 09:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Amitie 10g: thanks for your reply. I'm glad you agree that the issue is too nuanced to be covered in the infobox. Some responses to your other points:

Both are the "Presidente de la República bolivariana de Venezuela" with "limited recognition". I haven't seen reliable sources refer to Guaidó as president; they typically say that he claims to be president or that nations have recognized him as president, but not that he is.

The Constitution of Venezuela allows Guardidó to take office as President, in the absence of a legitime one, as the Maduro's period already ended, and the Constitution prohibits taking the office again, unless by force (aka. becoming a dictator and changing the Constitution for his convenience). That's one interpretation of the constitution, and sure, on that interpretation, Guaidó is (de jure and not de facto) president. Other interpretations exist, though, and as we agree, we don't have space in the infobox to get into that. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

2019 crisis section

I moved the 2019 crisis section to be directly after the most recent elections section, where I think it makes more sense. It's not clear to me why it was receiving top billing on an article about the office of the president; other articles about the offices of president, prime minister etc in other countries do not share this heavy focus on current events.

I think the section itself should also be cut down, right now it's several paragraphs but I think something much shorter would serve the same purpose. There is already a link to the article on the crisis for readers who would like to read more. Having several paragraphs of text on all articles that are related to the crisis makes it difficult to update when things change on other articles and leads to inconsistencies. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Juan Guaidó lost the dispute

The polls show the venezuelan people have lost faith in him and his ability to govern. The European Union stopped recognizing him as president now: https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1346874198556336128

This means that the presidential crisis is over and that Maduro is the only president of venezuela. I will edit the article and say that the presidential crisis is over, if nobody opposes this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seekallknowledge (talk • contribs) 01:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Your proposed edit gets my absolute approval. Maduro has the support of the majority of Venezuelan citizens and has been the legitimate elected President all along. Guaidó is actually a stooge for the USA's constant attempts to subvert the will of the Venezuelan people. An enormous stooge. The Ink Daddy! (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Pedrocarmona.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Should we stop claiming the status of the Venezuelan presidency is "disputed"?

The following discussion 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.

---

Should the infobox and lead be changed to indicate Nicolas Maduro is president of Venezuela without qualifying this status as being in dispute, while simultaneously preserving text in the body noting that some nations (such as the US) recognize Juan Guaidó instead? Chetsford (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Support A reasonable reading of WP:FRINGE suggests that the mere act of someone disputing a nation's presidency is insufficient for us to characterize the status of that presidency as "disputed" in the absence of a breadth of popular recognition of that dispute. Breadth of popular recognition for this dispute no longer exists.

• Within the last 30 days, WP:RS like Reuters [1], France 24 [2], Bloomberg [3], Al Jazeera [4], Times of India [5] and others have referred to "Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro" without any qualification of a dispute or counter-claim.
• The Financial Times [6] reports that Guiado has no legal claim to the presidency and no practical power in any case.
• The Wall Street Journal reports that Guaidó has "no powers and no control over territory" and that "what Mr. Guaidó and his team call an interim government is now little more than a virtual entity, making pro-democracy statements through social media and Zoom". [7]
• As of October, according to the Washington Office on Latin America, only 57 of the world's 193 UN member states recognize Guaidó as president in any capacity and "only 11 out of the 57 countries that recognize Guaidó have fully ended diplomatic relations with the Maduro government in favor of embracing Guaidó’s diplomats" [8]
• In January, the European Union withdrew recognition of Guaidó as president of Venezuela.[9]

Chetsford (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support While I'd argue the dispute still continues in some capacity (the US and EU parliament still recognise Guardió and they aren't exactly minor powers), it's certainly a lot weaker than before, and, considering the fact his powers are very weak at this point, the dispute can be considered pretty much over. Remagoxer ^(talk) 10:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

With respect that sounds like WP:OR: we are not empowered to make the call that "his powers are very weak at this point" = "the dispute is pretty much over", even if we are deeply convinced of the fact personally. Right now we have a world of both WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources which are all over the map in how the describe the crisis and how this situation should be described from legal, constitutional, and political perspectives. Our policies are pretty clear about how we handle such situations: we discuss the controversy, describing the various views in proportion to their weight among the sources, allowing our readers to perceive the dispute and the players involved (including among the primary sources expressing views on the matter). As long as there is a substantial minority view among both primary experts that Maduro is not president (and there's at least that) and there is anything short of overwhelming consensus in the secondary sources that such a view is outright fringe, we should continue to discuss the controversy here, not hide its existence from the reader. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose (Summoned by bot). The proposal, while clearly made in good faith, does not align with policy and community consensus on how to approach such situations, as codified at WP:BALANCE. When we have differing points of view expressed by sources (especially where we are summarizing the perspectives of WP:PRIMARY sources), we describe the controversy, providing full context to the reader and allowing them to draw their own conclusions. I do not see the benefit to obscuring the ongoing and complicated issue from the reader, and the argument advanced in this proposal relies substantially on WP:SYNTHESIS, combining disparate bits of evidence from different sources (which do not themselves expressly say that the dispute has ended) in order to nevertheless arrive at the conclusion that the dispute has ended. Meanwhile we still have a large WP:WEIGHT of secondary WP:RS out in the world saying expressly that there is a dispute.

In short, this strikes me as a WP:CRYSTAL matter: it may very well be that the writing is on the wall here for how this situation will play out, given some more time, but probabilities do not empower us to leap ahead of the sourcing in making that declaration, and this is true no matter how bad the situation is looking for Guaidó ever assuming any degree of authority arising out the presidential crisis. Right now the lead, the infobox, and the article in general all do a decent job of summarizing the nuances of the controversy, which is information anyone coming to this page for edification might fairly be expected to want to be aware of. Sanitizing the article of that context by removing any reference to the dispute seems to me to be stepping very much into the realm of POV pushing by way of omission of critical details the reader ought to be aware of.

We can and should make sure the article evolves to capture any continuing changes in support for the parties (that is to say, Guaidó's increasing marginalization). But until the weight of all relevant reliable sources overwhelmingly (and in direct terms) describe the presidential crisis as resolved (which is not presently the case by a long shot), we should not be rushing to fill that gap with original research about why it "should" be seen as done, nor prognosticating that there is any other possible ultimate outcome but one (even if we really, really suspect this is the case at this point). Snow ^{let's rap} 10:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support based on Chetsford's first argument regarding recent coverage by RS; I found additional evidence to support it when I investigated myself. In the entire first page of DuckDuckGo results for "Venezuela", every RS that mentioned Maduro referred to him as President Nicolas Maduro without qualification. Per Snow Rise's concern about determining weight based on coverage of the dispute itself, I think it would be fine to continue to write "disputed" and include a footnote next to Maduro's name in the infobox field, similar to how it is presented at Venezuela. But the equal presentation of Maduro and Guaido side-by-side as equal claimants misrepresents the extent to which RS treat Guaido as the head of state of Venezuela. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support, per sources listed by Chetsford, the dwindling international recognition of Guaidó, and primarily by the UN recognition of Maduro's government. For a person's legal standing in Venezuela, opinions of individual foreign countries are of limited relevance – key is the stance of the international community, and the official position of the UN is usually a reliable yardstick. I also support Rosguill's proposal of a footnote in the infobox. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Due to many of the arguments brought forth by previous editors. Simply put, the position of the US Congress shouldn't weight as much as it in this dispute, seeing how the UN, most countries in the world, an overwhelming majority of the world's media and, most importantly, Venezuelan institutions all refer to Maduro as president. PraiseVivec (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Snow. A lot of the responses here are taking the UN recognition of Maduro to argue the claim is no longer disputed. But it just furthers the dispute, because now (rather than simply the internal Venezuelan processes conflicting while the rest of the world generally aligns with their political ally) there are major international bodies on "the same side" that conflict with each other. The dispute has grown with the UN ignoring Guaido while much of Europe and US continue to ignore Maduro. And, again, as Snow pointed out, gathering a selection of articles that describe Maduro as the Venezuelan President is a very SYNTH argument to make. And saying "only" 57 countries recognize Guaido is also deliberately misleading by not looking at which - because those 57 represent much of the 1/4 of the world that, in international disputes, actually hold significance. Maduro has the power, but that doesn't end a dispute; whether Guaido has any basis to claim the presidency or not, he is doing so and has significant support, and that's a simple fact. Kingsif (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure anyone here argues that the presidency is not disputed. It clearly is (the US presidency is, too, lol). Rather, the argument was about international recognition. I suggest reading this interesting summary that describes the recent downgrade of Guaidó's recognition by the EU and the Lima Group. According to the document, Guaidó is no longer referred to by these countries as President of Venezuela but as the chair of the Board of Directors of a recently constituted Delegated Commission of the legitimate National Assembly.

  On a side note, you misquoted the country number: 57 was current as of October 2020 and it does not include the recent backtracks from the EU, the Lima Group, Panama and Dominicana[10]. So, currently Guaidó seems to be recognised by at most 16 out of 193 UN members.

  My suggestion is to keep only Maduro as de facto President and/or a note that he is partially recognised. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with everything else said here but oppose labeling Maduro as de facto president as it attends an implication that he is not also de jure president. I'm also concerned about the label "partially recognised". I'm just trying to imagine what WP would do if, tomorrow, Belarus, Syria, Turkmenistan, and North Korea all decided to recognize Gloria La Riva as president of the United States; would we asterisk Joe Biden as "partially recognized" in our article? I don't know, but my instinct tells me we probably wouldn't. Chetsford (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  My concern is that Maduro is not recognised as president by quite a significant number of countries - including the Lima Group - even if these countries maintain diplomatic relations with the Caracas government. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think TeleSur (Maduro's mouthpiece) being the only source you can muster for countries de-recognizing Guaidó is perhaps indicative of how pointless that argument is. But put it this way: the original argument says, basically, that sources refer to Maduro as president without any mention of Guaidó. However, it shows its bias by not looking for sources about Guaidó and presenting the language about them. He still has power representing Venezuela in the OAS and Lima Group. It's not just disputed, the power is actually shared, and the in-fighting has grown. Kingsif (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The presidential crisis undoubely continues, as Snow explained. Its roots started even before Guaidó was declared president, and shortly after the 2018 presidential election plenty of countries rejected the results, including the European Union and the Organization of American States (OAS), not just merely the opposition candidates; truth be told an important part of Guaidó's legitimacy lies in Maduro's perceived lack thereof. To illustrate how the dispute remains ongoing, Guaidó's representative (Gustavo Tarre Briceño) is Venezuela's ambassador in the OAS, being able to intervene and vote in resolutions, and as continue doing so for two years and a half up to as recently as this Wednesday.[11] This is clearly more than the position of just the US Congress or a fringe point of view. Until there are new presidential elections, there is a coalition government without Maduro or Guaidó or if the latter is effectively neutralized, the crisis is unlikely to end soon. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support based on the clear balance of reliable sources as shown by Chetsford. Loki (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The dispute is still ongoing and as user Snow explained, we just have to keep the article updated on the changes happening to the parties involved until a definite resolution is reached. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support based on the sources as shown by Chetsford. Would change my vote if examples of sources doing the opposite are provided. Alaexis_¿question? 19:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, because the proposal didn't bother to look for how sources talk about Guaidó/the opposition. If I went out looking for sources that say Trump is still the president, of which there are many, and only presented those in an RfC, would people support? (obviously not exactly the same, given reliability of sources, but the way the RfC is biased is just the same; it shows sources for one side and then writes without sources that the other side is just one guy making a self-described claim, which isn't true. The country has literally had two parliaments for longer than Guaidó was around) Kingsif (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• "Yes, because the proposal didn't bother to look for how sources talk about Guaidó/the opposition." It did. There just weren't any to report. Chetsford (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Is there a dispute? Yes. Snow puts it very eloquently. FOARP (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support Maduro is the de facto President, and the UN recognized President. That some countries recognize someone else should not elevate the pretender to equal status on a resource meant to provide factual information. Western states' refusal to recognize Maduro could be discussed in the body, but he is in fact the President. Guaido holds no state power. Zellfire999 (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended discussion

• Comment Off of what Kashmiri said, above, I'd note that WP:FRINGE describes an "idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". While we use reliable sources to determine what a particular field is saying about a subject, the RS themselves -- by my reading of FRINGE -- are chroniclers of the field and not adjudicators of the field. The mere presence of a dispute is not enough for us, in WP's voice, to declare a matter as "in dispute"; some significant minority would have to support the counter-claim. It seems the United States and the very small handful of the usual suspects like Palau, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, etc. who continue to extend full recognition to Guaidó are departing "significantly from the prevailing views" of the world order. And while it should be just fine to explain this dispute in the body of the article, to declare the matter as "in dispute" in WP's voice misrepresents the reality to our readers and elevates a fringe view to the equivalent of the mainstream perspective. Chetsford (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

"While we use reliable sources to determine what a particular field is saying about a subject, the RS themselves -- by my reading of FRINGE -- are chroniclers of the field and not adjudicators of the field

This is kind of a nitpick, insofar as I don't think the distinction is essential to reaching the appropriate editorial outcome here, but that's kind of the inverse of how the test is meant to run: we actually prefer WP:SECONDARY sources over primaries WP:PRIMARIES, even in circumstances such as these involving policy and new analysis, where the primaries will be themselves quoted quite liberally in corpus of the relevant sources. But I'm not sure that matters here, since I think the proportions are probably roughly similar regarding minority views.

However, more germane is the fact that WP:FRINGE itself makes clear that it is meant to be interpreted in strict accordance with WP:WEIGHT and WP:PROPORTION: "The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. Should any inconsistency arise between this guideline and the content policies, the policies take precedence." Now I hope my observations are coming off as respectful, because when discussing the complicated weight analysis here, I really do think there is room for reasonable minds to disagree: there's a lot of different factors on which even good faith editors looking to be consistent with policy might differ. But I just don't see how we can interpret the entire body of sources we are working with any other way than to say that "Nicolás Maduro is not the legitimate president of Venezuela" is anything other than a significant minority view among those many sources, no matter what combination of secondary and primary sources we use.

All of that said, I wonder if maybe I ought to focus more on areas of agreement than disagreement. Because some of what has been discussed above doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. I'll be honest: would certainly take a more wait and see approach, per WP:CRYSTAL, when it comes to the wording used prominently in the infobox. But at the end of the day, I'm not sure that's the most important detail. What I definitely wouldn't want to see, however, is a drastic reduction in the profile/amount of content of the article generally, either lead or main body, discussing the dispute. I think rather instead that in this situation policy directs us to describe which way the realpolitik wind is blowing by making sure new developments are mentioned. I'm sure we can all agree that the point is not to decide for the reader which of the competing ideological factions regarding this issue have the best claim to "legitimacy": it is to present the discussion (in WP:DUE proportion to how the details are treated in the sources), provide the reader with the sources and summary contextualization of the issues and views, and allow them to arrive at their own conclusions.

It seems to me that maybe if there was a discussion on some proposed text/revisions, we might discover there is actually very little disagreement here. Since you are a much more experienced contributor on this article, and the discussion requester, could I get your impressions on which elements of the prose and infobox should change and how? Not that you will necessarily need it, but I can see myself changing my !vote, depending on what that looks like: I don't want to be entrenched if there's actually more agreement than disagreement when we look at the details. I take it from how you've worded the RfC prompt that you want to remove mention of the debate from the lead: I will say that insofar as that is concerned, I don't see how we can do that and be consistent with what WP:WEIGHT and WP:PROPORTION require of us here. But perhaps some pairing down, or (as I suggested earlier) just adding more details discussing the developments with enough weight to indicate the direction things are headed without expressly saying what outcomes are likely moving forward. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:03, 17 July 2021 (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.

Implementation of RfC decision

For awareness of editors, and to implement the above closure, I took the liberty of moving the text of the dispute to a footnote in the infobox.[12] I have not made any changes to the lead or body. Chetsford (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the change! I'll be bold, I'll remove Maduro's image as well, which was a solution once implemented in the Spanish version. While it was argued at length why Guaidó's claim and position has weakened significantly, it has not been discussed how Maduro's, or his legitimacy, has, which were the reasons of all the dispute in the first place and has not apparently changed for two and a half years now. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

This is problematic on multiple levels. I've restored the image and opened a discussion, below. Chetsford (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I have further explained the rationale there. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

This is even more problematic. We now have two images and only one name, leaving the reader confused as to which image, if either, is one of Maduro. Chetsford (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

There's always the option of restoring both names, I suppose, and discuss changes more precisely. For the record, I agree that there should be a change, because the situation is different and it should be reflect accordingly. What I'm arguing is that while Guaidó's has changed, Maduro's has not: while the European Union has withdrawn recognition from Guaidó, it has not returned it to Maduro, and while some countries in Latin America have changed their foreign policy due to recent elections, the majority of the continent still supports Guaidó's claim and voted to have his representative in the Organization of American States (or in other words, they still don't recognize Maduro). It should be mentioned that all these disputes started since Maduro's inauguration, two weeks before before Guaidó declared himself as president. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

"There's always the option of restoring both names" No, that's not an option. We already discussed and decided that. Chetsford (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Should Nicolás Maduro's image appear in the infobox at the President of Venezuela article?

Should a headshot of Nicolás Maduro, whom a previous RfC indicated should be listed as President of Venezuela, occupy the "image" parameter of the infobox or not? Chetsford (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes for three reasons:

1. The infobox template documentation directs that the image parameter use "A picture of the incumbent of this post" and we have an image of said incumbent. (Incumbency is not in dispute insofar as WP is concerned. Per a previous RfC, this article reports on the existence of a real-world dispute but the identity of the incumbent — within WP — is not itself a matter of dispute.)
2. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. We have an image of Maduro, we have an RfC decision that directs Maduro should be listed as president, we list Maduro as president. To subsequently depart from our longstanding practice and demand that we conceal his image from public view is — despite any protestations to the contrary or superficial attempts at rationalization — simply a partisan, arbitrary, and capricious attempt at delegitimizing his office. Wikipedia is not in the business of legitimization or delegitimization.
3. Basic principles of article accessibility demands his image be included. His wikilinked name is included and, if one clicks on that wikilink one is taken to a picture. Removing his headshot in this article's infobox does nothing to mediate or mitigate any presumed dispute. It merely adds one additional step the reader must take to navigate to the incumbent's image.

Chetsford (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Clarification for those involved in the discussion that this thread is regarding a version where Guaidó's image is not displayed on the infobox.
• Not without Guaidó's I don't understand how WP:NOTCENSORED applies here. The previous RfC concluded that Guaido's position weakening should be displayed accordingly, but the discussion was not about Maduro and nothing was decided about him per se, and there wasn't an agreement on how to display it. Removing his image can be a possible solution to the disagreement, particularly given that there have not been improvements to his legitimacy after the last disputed presidential elections. Either way, Maduro's as title holder has not been changed in the infobox. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Now that NoonIcarus has made yet another sweeping change to the infobox, this question is moot. I'll open an RfC, below. Chetsford (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "sweeping", but be my guest. As I mention above, a change should be definitely discussed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

How should the RfC on the President of Venezuela infobox be interpreted with respect to the image parameter?

The following discussion 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.

---

A previous RfC posed this question: Should the infobox and lead be changed to indicate Nicolas Maduro is president of Venezuela without qualifying this status as being in dispute, while simultaneously preserving text in the body noting that some nations (such as the US) recognize Juan Guaidó instead? This was closed with the decision to move "the dispute into a footnote". The meaning of this closure with respect to the image parameter in the infobox is now in dispute. How should it be interpreted? Chetsford (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

A:It means Maduro should be singularly listed as incumbent, but both Maduro and Guiado get their pictures in the infobox. The text "Disputed between Nicolás Maduro and Juan Guaidó" appears in a footnote. (e.g. here [13])

B:It means Maduro should be singularly listed as incumbent and his image singularly displayed in the infobox. The text "Disputed between Nicolás Maduro and Juan Guaidó" appears in a footnote. (e.g. here [14])

C: It means something else.

Chetsford (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option B This is the obvious and plain meaning of the closure. To suggest that the RfC determined we should display images of two different people side-by-side but caption them with only one name is patently ludicrous. Attempts to parse the closure to mean that it doesn't apply to the infobox image is a crude form of wikilawyering. Despite any superficial rationalization, this is plainly a capricious attempt at subverting the outcome of the RfC for partisan purposes. Since Guaidó's "presidency" is essentially confined to digital trappings — Zoom meetings and a few hijacked embassy websites — it's clear that this is nothing more than an off-kilter attempt to preserve one of the touchpoints of that fantasy, namely, this Wikipedia entry. WP:NPOV demands we implement the plain meaning of the closure; it is a violation of NPOV to use this article for the purpose of girdling Guaidó's false belief that he's the Venezuelan head of state, which is the unarticulated reason for disputing the infobox parameter. Chetsford (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Courtesy pinging all participants in previous RfC: User:Zellfire999, User:Remagoxer, User:Snow Rise, User:Rosguill, User:Kashmiri, User:PraiseVivec, User:Kingsif, User:NoonIcarus, User:LokiTheLiar, User:BristolTreeHouse, User:Alaexis, User:FOARP. Chetsford (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• The answer is so obviously B I can't believe we're even having this RFC. Loki (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option B seems absurdly obvious, nothing else makes any sense at all. Zellfire999 (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option A or C, that none of them are displayed, or displaying a "Contested" label. In the case of the latter, this was a proposal implemented in the Spanish Wikipedia (currently both pictures appear to be displayed, but nevertheless it's a possible solution). My main argument for this is that while Guaidó's position has weakened and it should clearly be displayed accordingly, Maduro's position hasn't. Specifically, "while the European Union has withdrawn recognition from Guaidó, it has not returned it to Maduro, and while some countries in Latin America have changed their foreign policy due to recent elections, the majority of the continent still supports Guaidó's claim and voted to have his representative in the Organization of American States (OAS) (or in other words, they still don't recognize Maduro)"

I have to stress once again that Maduro's legitimacy has been questioned since his inauguration, two weeks before before Guaidó declared himself as president, and the OAS held a vote the same day to reject it. Another way to see this is that the dispute of his legitimacy is independent to Guaidó's claim, which is merely a result of it. And needless to say, the presidential crisis is ongoing; the change in the infobox should be accurate and proportional, which is my main concern. I will be pinging @Mikehawk10: as well, who closed the RfC. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I should mention additionally, as a response that "Guaidó's "presidency" is essentially confined to digital trappings — Zoom meetings and a few hijacked embassy websites": Guaidó's ambassador, Gustavo Tarre Briceño, represents Venezuela in the Organization of American States, able to intervene and vote in resolutions, just like any other ambassador and as in the Inter-American Commission and Court of Human Rights, and has continued doing so for two years and a half years now. Guaidó's claim continues to have legal repercussions, being an issue being discussed in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom currently to decide who should be awarded with $1 billion worth of gold from the Bank of England. This is not like Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya's claims and efforts to be recognized as the winner of the presidential elections in Belarus: his representatives are still currently accredited as ambassadors in the countries that recognize him, mostly in Latin America, and his claim's effects have been everlasting, up to this day. To dismiss this would be contrary to policy per WP:CRYSTALBALL. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option B The caption refers to Nicolás, so showing two images with only a footnote distinguishing them seems rather confusing. Option B makes sense. Remagoxer ^(talk) 22:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option B Mind you, if we were deciding any of this as a matter of first instance, I would probably go with some version of C. But if I read the prompt of this RfC correctly, I am being asked to make a determination between options with respect to what the closer intended with their comments, and only B seems to align with the findings of consensus with respect to that close. I think the closer did a reasonable and fair job in their conclusions regarding that RfC, and articulated the contours of the debate well, and though I advocated for a slightly different approach than was the outcome, I also think it would be problematic with respect to process to take a second bite at the apple here. I also agree that merely for the sake consistency, it makes more sense to provide only the one image if only the one party is listed in the infobox. So long as the details of the dispute on the presidential crisis continue to be reflected to some significant degree in the lead (until express sourcing shifts, which I expect it will in the next year, give or take), I think the consensus approach reflected in the close is a reasonable middle ground solution. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option B seems to be the intended outcome of the RfC. Note that this is only about the Infobox content, without prejudice to giving due weight to Guaidó's claims and recognition in the lead section and elsewhere in the article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• B The person listed as incumbent (i.e. Maduro) gets the portrait. Anything else is nonsensical. BSMRD (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2021 (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.

Related RfC

Please see:

• Talk:Juan_Guaidó#RfC:_Is_Juan_Guaido_still_interim_president_of_Venezuela?

--David Tornheim (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

That discussion can now be found here. The conclusion at that time by the closing admin on 3 December 2021 was: "There is a clear consensus that Juan Guaidó isn’t the interim president of Venezuela." --David Tornheim (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Take a look at the comment next to the info: Remains disputed by the international community regardless of Guaidó Guaidó's recognition has not changed Maduro's recognition, and said RfC took place for the former's article over two years, not this one. This has already been explained several times in the edit history:[15][16][17][18]. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: Please self-revert. The last and most recent diff you provided by 25stargeneral says the opposite of your repeated reverts.

The current RS does not support your contention either:

The interim government was dissolved in December 2022, when three of the four main political parties approved its dissolution to create a commission of five members to manage foreign assets, as the deputies sought a united strategy ahead of the presidential elections scheduled for 2024. [This is in the article WP:LEDE]

EU states no longer recognise Guaido as Venezuela's interim president January 25, 2021.

Even the U.S. State Department mentions Maduro, but not Guaido.[19]

Do you have current WP:RS showing that there is any support for the your contention that the Presidency is "disputed"? Any WP:RS before 3 December 2021 is irrelevant, based on the WP:RFC I cited above.

In the meantime, please self-revert. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

References