Talk:Juan Guaidó

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Undue weight for Meganálisis polls[edit]

A lot of the article cites many polls by Meganálisis. A quick look at their Twitter account makes it very clear that they are highly partisan and do not hide their support for the subject of this article, which is rather unusual for a polling firm. This is perhaps not the biggest issue with an article that is used by many as a platform for US-backed regime change propaganda, but still worth doing something about. -- (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Other pollsters have been quoted and no references have been provided reporting this bias. However, a footnote could be included. --Jamez42 (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Other surveys, including one in Colombia (and I recently came across one in Uruguay even) are showing the same thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

What is the reason to publish here surveys from other countries (like Colombia)? Other countries should be removed from this table, or have another table. There are a lot of countries, but they shouldn't decide for Venezuela.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:41, April 30, 2019 (UTC)

Colombia has been a major player in the Venezuela events and politics surrounding the crisis, and because Colombia has been so impacted by the crisis, in terms of stability, drug wars, migration, humanitarian aid, so much more. How Colombians view the players in the presidential crisis is quite relevant. That Venezuelan people will "decide" ignores the geopolitical influences bring brought to bear, and in that sense, Colombia is significant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Main image[edit]

Allright, the main image keeps changing: let's decide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


  • Option B. My second choice would be Option C (ORIGINAL). I think C looks a bit sketchy, and washed out. I don't like that he is "in the shadows". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I updated the gallery per comments below, and I still prefer Option B.

    Option C (ORIGINAL) is dark, dreary, in the shadows, makes him look just plain creepy. Also, portraits are all about the eyes, and the washed out eyes in Option C are what make him appear somewhat sketchy.

    Option C (ALTERNATE) looks waxy and artificial.

    Option B shows more character. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Option B He looks more like a legislator. Probably C, A and D next in that order. TFD (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Didn't notice this was here before I changed it, but I had to fix the wax figure of C - the original version of that photo is up now, looking more lifelike, and is what I'd vote for. Sorry, continue. Kingsif (talk) 08:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • So, Option C (original) for you then? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't put in a vote, but that would be it. B is close, but the slightly tilted head and closed expression almost make him look like he's hiding being drunk from his parents, he looks less of a professional guy in it for me. Kingsif (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Option B, my second option would be the original version of C. --Jamez42 (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm striking my comment for the same reasons as Oscar, although I too would like to bring attention to the original C. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm biased with this, that why I'm not voting, but please take a moment to consider the original C (Here), since it was a bit of a nightmare to upload the photo. Some user already tried to correct some of the shadows. --Oscar_. (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • There are (including the separate file) 5 versions of that image, but I think the second version of the original is best, after that @Wilfredor: is just washing out features and making him look unreal (no offence intended, I love his work as ThePhotographer, but there's no quality improvements after the first clean). If it were restored to this version (18:56, 23 March 2019) would people prefer it? Kingsif (talk) 09:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I updated the gallery to the untouched version (had not realized). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not necessarily care, from best to worst for me: B,D,C's,A. --MaoGo (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Are there any photos of him that make his eyes look a bit more normal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:14C5:8206:219:E3FF:FED3:9BF8 (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Option C – While C image is pretty... creative, B image looks like it was taken on a phone camera ten years ago.----ZiaLater (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: @SandyGeorgia: I have also changed the lighting in image C. The left side of his face had a lot of exposure and the whole image had a lot of shadows. Better now?----ZiaLater (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi, ZiaLater; he still looks either dead, or like he's made of wax, to me in that image. I also don't like that his face is shaded, no matter how we fix the lighting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I say option B. Seems the best combination of neutral depiction and quality of lighting. Paxperscientiam (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - Option D should be rejected. There is an American flag in the background, that should be an automatic DQ. Carrite (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Singing Guaido's praises in the "Public Perception" section[edit]

Regardless of what you think of president-in-exile (I support him, personally), the quote by Andres Oppenheimer isn't encylopedic material. By its mere presence on what is supposed to be a fact-based website, it's presented as fact. (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I would like to see some sort of overview of the comments. It's not helpful to readers to read that he has been praised by some people they have never heard of, but criticized by other people they have never heard of. TFD (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
TFD, are you aware of another article that does that well, one that we might consider as a sample? It's hard for me to imagine how to discuss perception without attribution: an example would help, particularly since sometimes Wikipedia has to attribute to a person, other times to a publication. To IP 67's comment, I am not seeing the distinction between Oppenheimer, Shifter, The Nation, The Guardian or any other person/source quoted. Perhaps IP 67 could explain what about the Oppenheimer comment is different than any other perception cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


Was he elected in 2015 to the assembly from one of the first-past-the-post constituencies in Vargas, or from the proportional list seats for Vargas? And more than that, how many seats are their for these two different kinds of constituencies? This isn't even really made apparent on the article for the assembly about how the electoral system works. How many of each kind of seats does Vargas get? --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: who may know, and @Kingsif: who I think added the election tables (that I could never figure out). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I did a little reseach after asking this and was able to find that he was elected from one of the first-past-the-post constituencies, but all of my other questions still stand. It seems like two seats were elected from this FPTP constituency (and also two from the proportional list constituency), but I'm still really curious if every one of these also elects the exact same number of seats. Really a question more appropriate for the Assembly article, I know, but if anyone can answer it here and provide a source for the information, that would be great. I would like to add this information to the Assembly page, and perhaps someone can also add the name of the constituency for Guaido in the infobox and the article here. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Possibly the biggest issue is that since 2010 there's been changes in the voting systems. Wikipedia's latest update on that is 2010. Kingsif (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── This weekend has been long, sorry for taking long to appear. I'm not sure if I understand the question, but as far as I know each state has their own electoral districts, each one with a deputy to choose. The candidate to win more votes in that district is elected, which means that there can be deputies from different parties in the same state. I'm not sure if I understand the difference from the proportional list. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems a rather one-sided look at him[edit]

Can we have more than one opinion and list of cherry-picked "facts" His involvement in neo-liberal groups, for instance. There is this article: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:58, May 1, 2019 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy, and old discussions about that source in archives here. Also, MintPress News does not strike me as something that I would use to write a BLP. The few valid points made are already covered by higher quality sources, if not refuted by them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

This story was originally published by and is written by Max Blumenthal and Dan Cohen, both well-known and award-winning journalists. Obviously you did not read it. I do not see much of anything in this Wikipedia info about Guaido that corresponds to how far to the right he is and his support of violence. These days, some "well-known" news sources are captured by our government. Your comment that the "few valid points" made concerns me about where you get your info. And I would like to have you point out where those points are in this description and which ones have been refuted by which sources.

Just the title alone of that article yells "WP:FRINGE" as loudly as it can get Cambalachero (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is at the forefront of neoliberal propaganda, so don't expect something like that here.

Minor discussion about phonetics 3[edit]

@IvanScrooge98:: I apologize for not being clear. This has come up a couple of times. Look for Talk:Juan_Guaidó/Archive_1#Minor_discussion_about_phonetics_2. I'm still waiting for a WP guideline for this kind of problems. Also a "Venezuela pronunciation" tag was added. Surely the audio file has to change. --MaoGo (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@MaoGo: I understand, the point is 1. that transcription links to a help page where ‹h› is not listed nor explained, and 2. as you said there is a discrepant audio file. Possibly the peculiar Venezuelan pronunciation is a little too specific and a general Southern American IPA as used elsewhere with {{IPA-es}} may be fine. Otherwise, we have to change/remove the audio and use {{IPA-all}}. Regards. Italy.png イヴァンスクルージ九十八(会話)Italy.png 09:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@IvanScrooge98: I could work on explaining /h/ in the IPA. I can also work on the audio file but it would take a few days. I will change to IPA all meanwhile. Again we do not have enough guidelines for this. --MaoGo (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry I can't help in this area other than to say that MaoGo is right on the pronunciation. Is it not just possible for someone to do an audio file? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I personally do not like to register audio files. Let me see if I can find somebody to do it. --MaoGo (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: [h] included now. Now we need an audio. --MaoGo (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


I tagged the article as biased and in need of clean up with this edit summary:

Tag as biased and in need of clean up. I found more than one sentence that did not reflect the material in the cited WP:RS. In comparison with wikipedia articles in other languages, this article shows a strong bias. The WP:RS says that he is the self-appointed president and strongly disputed, but you would not know that from reading the first two sentences of the article. The WP:LEDE fails to mention how recently he became head of the National Assembly.

Examples of sentences that make statements that do not reflect what is in the cited WP:RS:

The National Assembly declared Guaidó had assumed the powers and duties of president, and continued to plan to remove Maduro.[1][2] They called for demonstrations on 23 January, the 61st anniversary of the overthrow of dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez.[3]


Compare this article with the similar articles in other languages:

--David Tornheim (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: since I wrote none of the text you are discussing, and haven't looked at the sources, I am going to for now address the issue of other language wikis. Every other language I have looked at does not adhere to the strict policies we do, often has unreliably to unsourced text, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Saying this article is biased because of a comparison to other Wikis is off. Please do provide a list of sources where you find problems (I have found many myself as I have dug into text that was here when I started editing), but please do not expect another language wiki to be a guide for Wikipedia is a poor source for comparison, and an example for nothing, and I'm not going to that level. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Separately, to the issues; as I understand it, you have tagged the article as biased based on two sentences where you found problems with reliable sources? Would it not be easier just to fix those? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif, ZiaLater, and Jamez42:, this is text that was here before I started editing and I've not read the old sources. Would you all like to have a look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: It seems like it was added (or reinserted) by you in a shower of edits [1]. Anyway, it was just a misplacement of a source, the actual sources appears two line after "With massive numbers of demonstrators coming out on 23 January in cities throughout Venezuela and across the world,[1]". --MaoGo (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
@MaoGo:, look what I just found ...
A BBC source with a CNN ref tag name. Some shower of edits :) So somewhere some citations got mixed up. I'll sandbox the whole paragraph and try to track down what went missing. Thanks for finding that! And now you all know why I name refs that way instead of using those dreadful numbers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Protestas en Venezuela: miles de personas participan en manifestaciones masivas contra el gobierno de Maduro". BBC NewsMundo (in Spanish). 23 January 2019. Retrieved 28 January 2019.
I do not know about the other languages, but I can talk about the French version, and the French version has a lot of issues of translation from early versions of this article and it is currently out of date.--MaoGo (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I looked at the Spanish one. The last semi-significant edit was 29 March, the lead is dreadfully full of useless detail, and it has none of the characteristics described by David Tornheim, so I'm still not sure what we are being asked (besides for someone to get in here and fix errors found in two sentences). And without some indication from actual reliable sources, rather than a Wiki, not sure what's next. David? Can you provide a specific of which of the other Wikis has what you're after, so we can look at the sources used? The French and Spanish at least aren't doing it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
You mean I got a source in the wrong place? Gee, that sounds just like the kind of mistake I would make :) One thing I'm sure of: if I fix things, my edit count goes up. So, I will have to leave it to all of you :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Are you telling me the issue in one case is over 23 de Enero being the 61st anniversary and that source being two lines later? Oh, dear. That is the kind of information that doesn't even require a source, by policy. (Sky is blue stuff.) But I overcite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia I do not understand why you feel these concerns were addressed to you. I never suggested you put that material in the article. I have no idea who put those two sentences in. Does it really matter? The problem is that they do not reflect what is in the WP:RS for the citations, which says things like:
* Opposition leader declares himself ready to assume presidency
* Juan Guaidó said he has constitutional right to assume leadership because Maduro is an illegitimate 'usurper'
* “We aren’t victims. We are survivors ... and we will lead this country towards the glory it deserves,” Guaidó added, calling on the people, the international community and, crucially, Venezuela’s armed forces to support him.
* But he called a day of nationwide demonstrations for 23 January to intensify pressure on Maduro
The sources make very clear these announcements come directly from Guaidó. But our article misleadingly makes it sound like the National Assembly is authoring these proclamations, as if they had passed resolutions. Hence, those two sentences are not WP:NPOV. It gives the misleading suggestion that the National Assembly is backing him far more fully than is stated in the sources.
The article is filled with similar problems which has been noted by other editors.
I mentioned other problems in my edit summary, but those have been ignored.
I never suggested that foreign language Wikipedias are WP:RS. But they are less biased than our article is. They make it far more clear the extent to which the leadership of Guaidó is self-proclaimed and disputed. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, David Tornheim, but I wasn't editing this article in its early days, and that is why I pinged the editors who were so they can have a look at that specific text; they can deal with the sourcing to content concerns faster than I can. MaoGo did determine that I placed a reference after the fact on the 23 de Enero text in the wrong place. I can't help much on the earlier text, that was developed before I was editing here. And please don't communicate about a serious issue like POV via edit summary. In my work, which occurred later, if there is something I need to address, I am sure I will be pinged. Did I say issues had been addressed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
David Tornheim In this edit, I have sorted a ref name mixup, and added citations to Spanish-language sources indicating the National Assembly involvement (as opposed to Guaido only, or Guaido acting only as President) in these events and pronouncements. I am sorry it took so long to get to this; I was not editing this article at the time those sentences were crafted, these are not the sources I would have chosen at the time, but they are what I can find now, three months after the fact.

The English-language media typically simplifies things, while the Spanish-language sources supply greater detail on the local level. There was not any misrepresentation in the article; just inadequate referencing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Article tagged[edit]

I agree with Sandy on here. Unless more examples are given, I will boldly remove the template. Comparing wikis here is not a good statement unless more detail is given. Also there are many users working in Venezuelan articles right now, even the smallest issue can be quickly corrected if given exactly where to look. --MaoGo (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the tags, as they were removed after less than 3 hours, and you have not legitimately addressed any of my concerns. I noticed that editors were selectively invited to this discussion. Why have established editors, some of which have expressed concerns about content being biased have not been invited to the discussion too, e.g. Carrite, Kashmiri, The Four Deuces, Huldra? Numerous editors have noted bias in this article. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
David Tornheim, could you please point me towards where this selective inviting of some editors happened? Because I seem to have been left out, and I don't see anything like that on this page. I don't recall ever seeing Carrite here before? To my knowledge, The Four Deuces, who is a regular here, has the page watchlisted, and I imagine Kashmiri does too.

I am hoping you can lower the temperature a bit and give some examples of things you'd like addressed: pointing us to another Wikipedia though, ugh ... that's not a great standard to aspire to ... It seems I placed a citation two sentences after where you were looking for the information in it, but am waiting to hear what else we might do to satisfy your concerns (as long as you don't expect us to use Wikipedia as a model :) As of now, you've listed not a single thing editors can be working on, so the article tag isn't very helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, now I see the ping you are referencing: it was mine. Yes, those are the editors who were involved in the earlier stages of this article development, while I was not actively editing, and they are the ones who know the earlier text. That is why I asked them to look in. Someone else looked in first and found that a wayward citation was actually mine, and was added after the fact. Pinging editors who can fix something fast seems reasonable to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit summary to text[edit]

Translating edit summary requests to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

On the edit summary:@David Tornheim: in your edit summary you recalled a non-RS discussion with an IP, an archived unelaborated comment by an IP and an archived uncontroversial discussion. Two of them are from two months ago, when the article was in a completely different shape. All of those discussion were addressed, without further complains. Using old conversations that claim bias is not enough to prove bias. Again, the best way would be to give examples so we can address them fast enough instead of discussing politics. The template has been added under insufficient motivation. Please explain. --MaoGo (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Noting the edit summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

This edit summary says:

  • The WP:RS says that he is the self-appointed president and strongly disputed, but you would not know that from reading the first two sentences of the article. The WP:LEDE fails to mention how recently he became head of the National Assembly.)

So, which RS would that be? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Almost any article about him. A simple Google makes it easy to see that. Have you not been following the news about him?
Self-proclaimed: ...CNBC, Time, LA Times, Business Insider; or self-declared: CNN, Guardian, China Morning Post, Al Jazzera, CBC--Canadian Broadcasting.
I already mentioned this on Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis here on 19:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC). Did you forget about that post?
Additionally, foreign language Wikipedias I had directed you to say it, and that they probably have sources to back it up if the above is not enough:
Luego de varios cabildos abiertos llevados a cabo en todo el país, el 23 de enero de 2019 se realizó un cabildo abierto en la ciudad de Caracas, en conmemoración de los 61 años de la caída de la dictadura de Marcos Pérez Jiménez, donde estuvo presente Juan Guaidó quien, interpretando las atribuciones del artículo 233 de la Constitución Nacional,[Note 1] declaró asumir la presidencia interina de Venezuela.[1][2][3]


I might add some other Wikipedias that include WP:RS. Although, I welcome anyone else to as well. How much WP:RS do we really need for this?
--David Tornheim (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@David Tornheim: I am not clear how you think the Spanish article text you quoted differs from what is in this article. says Guaido "declared he would assume the interim presidency of Venezuela". We say the same thing, to such an extent that I am guessing the older parts of the articles were translations of each other.

I've answered the "self-proclaimed" at the presidential crisis talk. Also, literally taking an oath before the public because there is no independent judiciary to swear one in is not equivalent to "self-annointed", which overlooks the Venezuelan Constitution and law; that is mixing two different concepts.

Having it both ways:[2] do we agree the mainstream media is imperfect or not? More comprehensive detail is available in local language sources. "Swore himself in" is literally correct; converting that to "self-annointed", "self-proclaimed", "declared himself", et al, is sloppy reporting. To my knowledge, there was zero opposition from the National Assembly-- the only independent institution left in the country.

At any rate, moving on: what is being asked for is more coverage of the "self-proclaimed", "self-annointed", "declared himself" reports in the mainstream media. Covering that in detail is a good idea. Kashmiri didn't want that sort of detail in this article: do you think it belongs here or at the Pres Crisis article, or both? It might warrant its own paragraph somewhere. If we can agree on that, I'll dig up sources. (It takes time to find Spanish-language sources that cover the topic comprehensively, but it can be done. I know I have also seen some in English. After Kashmiri objected to any of that kind of content in this article, I stopped adding it; finding sources months after the fact is a bit harder, but doable.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead citations[edit]

  • I was pinged in here, apparently to give an opinion, so I will. I think the lead shows signs of factional armwrestling — all the footnotes are a bad sign. There should be certain facts about Guaidó upon which all should agree. The fact that Team A is emphasizing that he's under investigation for alleged malfeasance and that Team B thinks he's the runaway popular favorite in some poll or another should all be tossed, in my opinion. We're not going to solve the Nicaraguan revolution or coup or power struggle or whatever you want to call it with a Wikipedia article. The Venezuelan people will ultimately decide that issue. Guaidó is one of the participants; we should note that fact and provide his biography without commentary upon either his character, his international friends, or his relative popularity. If you are worked up about those things on either side, let it go — walk away from this piece. Trust me, it's not going to influence the outcome of the contest one way or the other. I think the piece, in general, is better than it was. Just the facts, friends, fuck the politics. Carrite (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree that we should focus on the facts--or more precisely on representing WP:NPOV what is in the reliable sources. I pointed out cases where the text is not reflective of the content in the sources: The first two sentences are a good example. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Carrite: As of this version, here are the citations in the lead. I've removed the polls and that factional stuff. I don't really consider this an improvement but ... meh ... neither do I care one way or the other. The problem now is the lead is short and we'll have to decide what else should go there, but that kind of work is better done once the issues in the body of the article are settled.

  • is recognized as acting President of Venezuela by 54 governments.[2]
    Statement that a reader will expect to find in the lead (how much support does this guy have?). Citation there is reasonable because it's hard data, and if it is removed, someone will cn it.
  • AP News reported that "familiar geopolitical sides" had formed in the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, with allies Russia, China, Iran, Syria, and Cuba supporting Maduro, and the US, Canada, and most of Western Europe supporting Guaidó.[3]
    This is a citation to one source that gives a broad summary of the who supports/who doesn't, and chosen specifically to avoid getting overly specific. Seems appropriate and warranted; reader will want an overview of who supports him, but avoid detail.
  • Shortly after Guaidó became President of the National Assembly, he was briefly detained by authorities.[4]
    This statement is cited because Kashmiri was very specific about some aspect of the who, why or when; I don't remember. I'd be very happy to lose the citation, as the text is covered in the body of the article, and not controversial. It doesn't need to be arm-wrestled, but it was. I don't remember the specifics, but could go back in archives to see.
  • is the subject of a probe into accusations that he helped foreign countries interfere in internal matters,[5]
    indifferent to whether the citation here is removed, but there is no arm wrestling; it's a straight forward statement, not controversial, covered in the article body.
  • He was named to Time magazine's list of 100 most influential people in the world for 2019.[6]
    Appropriate for the lead, also in the body of the article and cited in the body, but if we remove the citation from the lead, someone will probably cn it.

Awaiting your feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, so I was also pinged here, so I will give my 2 cents. First of all, I un−watched this article ages ago, as I thought the pro−Juan Guaidó prejudice absurd. He might be "recognized as acting President of Venezuela by 54 governments"...but he is no more closer to being actual President of Venezuela, than I am. That is the fact, and presenting him as "President of Venezuela Acting" is insanely absurd. Huldra (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Huldra, couldn't agree more. You are raising one of the classic reasons that INFOBOXES SUCK, because you are talking not about article content, but infobox parameters. I don't do infoboxes. But edit war that out of there and end up at ArbCom. In my world, the infobox would be deleted, because infoboxes cannot convey nuance. Considering the long-standing problems surrounding infobox parameters on Wikipedia, my suggestion is to remove that. Which I will do now.[3] Watch it get edit-warred back in by infobox warriors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Huldra, there you go. [4] People just gotta have their blipping useless infoboxes. Ballers19, in my edit summary I linked very clearly to this discussion. Did you read it? If having an infobox is going to generate POV, why not delete it? The long-standing problem with infoboxes is that you cannot convey nuance in a parameter, and this is a nuanced situation. Infoboxes bring nothing but trouble, and provide no information that is not already in the article. In this case, it's a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not up to a single editor to remove the main infobox, especially with an edit summary depicting this as a consensus. Infoboxes play an important role, for example in search engine results. Their structure offers a fair degree of flexibility - we simply need to use it. — kashmīrī TALK 12:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
^ Agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
We'll need a separate discussion of how to handle Huldra's concern; the problem is not generated by content, it is caused by an infobox parameter, as they don't allow for nuance. (We haven't had an infobox consensus discussion here, so one editor can be BOLD about it; it was reverted, now we need to figure out how to solve this.) According to Venezuelan Statute, Gauido's title in Venezuela is Acting president, and many reliable sources source that. But to put that wording in an infobox, without context, causes problems. Ideas might be explored in a new and separate discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Applicability of that statute to the situation is debatable, the reason being that Guaidó's presidential claim is disputed (to which I think everyone here agrees). If I got it right, he is Acting President according to one reading of the constitution (the supporters argue that Maduro's last win was invalid because of irregularities in the election process which went against the basic tenets of democracy); he is not Acting President according to another reading (which argues that the irregularities alone do not invalidate the elections and that anyway it's not up to the parliament to rule on elections' validity). We need to be extremely balanced here. Wikipedia's role is not to create facts. We also should avoid selecting sources that support only one side of a political conflict (which is an increasingly challenging task in today's world where the powerful media conglomerates follow the political line of their owners or political backers). — kashmīrī TALK 17:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
^agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
And none of that back-and-forth context fits in to an infobox parameter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The Huldra issue is an infobox problem: RFC underway below. If the infobox stays, I don't know how that problem can be addressed, so don't know what else to do about correcting this aspect of the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Re: Applicability of that statute to the situation is debatable ... he is Acting President according to one reading of the constitution ... The Statute was enacted by, according to reliable sources, the only democratically elected or legitimate political body left in a country that has unchecked power in the Executive and no independent electoral body.[5], [6], [7],[8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13],[14],[15] The statute was enacted precisely to define the transitional process in a situation where the Venezuelan Constitution (Article 333) tells the citizens they must restore and enforce the Constitution if it is not followed,[16], [17], but is silent on by what process they are to do that.[18] To the extent Guaido is recognized as President-by-some-name by 54 countries and various other bodies, the Statute is precisely the law governing what he is to be called in these circumstances. To the extent we have to call the position something, the Statute is the only law governing what the name of the position is. @Jamez42: please check if I have this right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: I hope I'm not late to the party. I would say that this summary is mostly, if not completely, correct. It should be mentioned that both Articles 333 and 350 have been cited as late as in the 2017 protests, and the common understanding of said process was to continue protesting and not recognize Maduro as president. I would say that the main issue with the constitutional reading is that we don't have a commonly accepted authority to listen regarding the interpretation. However, I personally believe the opposition has stronger legal arguments, from the irregularities while naming the Supreme Tribunal justices to those during the presidential elections. At the end it sums up to having the reliable sources. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Jamez42 anyone who knows Venezuelan law knows the issues explained in that source, but a) this content is rarely explained in English-language sources, and b) it is nowhere to be found on Wikipedia. If we do not create the building block content, we cannot expect our readers to understand the basics, and we can expect to see ongoing claims of bias based on sketchy English-language coverage even in the best mainstream sources. That is why I am going on about setting priorities: the building blocks needed are missing in the English language, while available in Spanish, and the amount of work needed is pressing. As an example, there is ZERO at Supreme Tribunal of Justice (Venezuela) to help non-Spanish speakers or non-Venezuelans grasp the extent of the issue with the TSJ. The foundational content needs to be built to be in better position to address the concerns of bias editors are raising here. They are not going to get that level of detail from English-language sources, because those do not cover it; English-language sources gloss it over with terms like "pro-Maduro Supreme Court" or "opposition-majority parliament" or "self-appointed president", and readers may think such qualifiers carry the same meaning as they would in a country like the US or UK. This content needs to be developed on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: Ah, I completely understand. Should we start a to do list? I could translate the issues and history of the TSJ as well as other Spanish articles. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jamez42:, I thought you'd never ask :) :) When people in a good part of the free world read "pro-Maduro Supreme Court", they conjure up first-world, democracy privileged things like--the Republicans didn't give Obama's supreme court nominee a hearing-- they have variable and media-driven knowledge of the level of issues in Venezuela. It has little meaning to the average person up North why reliable sources say the only legitimate institution left in the country is the National Assembly, or the consequences of that situation. The National Assembly article doesn't lay out anything about what has been done to that institution; it has barely been touched. The TSJ article doesn't lay out the history. Where do we address that Maduro should never have been interim President to begin with? I can't find that anywhere--we can't even answer Cmonghost's basic questions about succession without having to go off on a wild google chase. Where do we lay out how the President of the National Assembly is chosen? Basic building block information is nowhere to be found, so of course others see bias. They read "self-proclaimed president" and there's no fallback in the English language. I should be able to quickly address the issues being raised here, and I can't. I have to invent the wheel. I just wrote the list in this paragraph. Maybe you can convince those who read and speak Spanish to start writing; I am willing to make the minor grammatical copyedits. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @SandyGeorgia: Thank you very much in advance! I've recently have found myself with less tie to edit, but translating now and then should get the work done. I guess Oscar could also help out and I could bring the idea to the Spanish Wikipedia, although I feel it recently has been less active, one of the reasons of why the articles are outdated. Regarding Maduro's controversy, I think the Spanish article includes said sources, in that language, and I've been told that at its time, during Chávez sickness, it was quite a discussion at the talk page. I think I'll get started with the Tribunal article; we could also include the Articles of the constitution, with the translation from Wikisource, in quoteboxes @SandyGeorgia:

Bias in first two sentences of the article[edit]

Above [19] and in this edit summary, I said:

The WP:RS says that he is the self-appointed president and strongly disputed, but you would not know that from reading the first two sentences of the article.

--David Tornheim (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kashmiri, Huldra, Carrite, and David Tornheim: you can see here the edit where Kashmiri removed the very balance some of you are asking for. The text before Kashmiri's edit was:

The text after Kashmiri's edit was:

I think you will all find that, presented with requests based on policy and reliable sources, editors here are willing and ready to comply, but we are getting mixed messages (with not a single reliable source you want incorporated), and you are criticizing this article for missing content that Kashmiri removed and insisted did not belong here (over my objections for balance). Pleasing four masters is not possible. You can see right here, how I bowed to Kashmiri to delete text you are all now wanting back, concluding with my reminder to Kashmiri that this would come back to haunt us:

Marking resolved, if Kashmiri does not want to balance the article with Maduro's side of the story, I will "take yes for an answer", and agree to leave that out. If there are future complaints about imbalance, see here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)""

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

And here, text about Guaido's presidency being contested is deleted from the body as well (having already been deleted from the lead). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Not resolved. see further comment below, starting with "Sorry" You have not addressed my concerns above. [I will comment momentarily.] What is the hurry to take off the tags? --David Tornheim (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[struck --David Tornheim (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)]
David Tornheim, I was quoting (I thought clearly) an old remark showing that Kashmiri did not want that balancing text inserted. I did not say anything was resolved. I have reformatted the post as a blockquote and with bolding to aid readers who may be in a hurry. I am not, nor have I indicated any such thing anywhere on the page; perhaps you are?[20] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: Sorry I did not notice the comment that is emphasized in green by the block quote was from February 2019. Anyone who skims this article may make the same mistake. The organization of this discussion leaves something to be desired, and I will attempt break some up into individual concerns.
Another editor, MaoGo, removed the bias tags less than three hours after I posted them. I do not believe that is a sufficient amount of time to allow all editors who have this article watchlisted to have an opportunity to weigh in. That editor is again asserting that there are no issues, when I (and Kashmiri here have made quite clear that there still are, and obviously we are still discussing those issues. Of note, Kashimi said:
* * * A number of editors have expressed reservations about the obvious, blatant bias in the article, only to be met with rebuttals. I will also add here the worrying use of manipulation techniques, characteristic of propaganda pieces (use of peacock terms and phrases; passing of propaganda terms as objective; selective citations; etc.) * * * — kashmīrī TALK 10:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC) [21]
I cannot spend 24/7 working on this article, and I doubt most other editors can either. Some level of patience is required to improve this article to the point that it is WP:NPOV. There is no deadline.
SandyGeorgia: I do appreciate your willingness to discuss issues with the first two sentences in the WP:LEDE. I will continue discussing that with you (and anyone else) soon. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Great, and thanks for the apology. On the organization of the page, starting off by providing concerns about POV (a serious matter) in an edit summary, rather than a well-organized presentation on talk might be part of the problem :)

As to MaoGo, I can read; I know what MaoGo did. In MaoGo's defense, this article's topic has been on the mainpage for three grueling months (which to my knowledge is almost unheard of), and we have had numerous IPs and non-informed editors enter commentary that has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. When an article is on the mainpage, everyone with a keyboard has an opinion. Your initial presentation could have been done in a more serious manner, and I understand MaoGo's reaction based on the shotgun presentation.

I am only now figuring out there is a big cockup in the paragraph you first brought to attention because some citations got crossed, and I will work on that (thank you for catching that).

And I'd ask you all to get yourselves in some sort of agreement on the scope of the article. Kashmiri wanted none of the politics here; all of it in the presidential crisis article, straight basic biographical info here, and insisted we take out a lot of text, so what the heck.

There is no deadline, I am not in a hurry, but neither is it thoughtful to tie up people's time and an article without presenting organized specifics based on reliable sources that you list. Your time is limited, so is mine (it's spring out there, and my manicure doesn't do itself); let's use our time well. Of course I will patiently discuss, respond and address anything that is reasonable and based on quality sources; I corralled prima donnas at FAC and FAR for years. There's no deadline, but there is an expectation that when you tag an article, you will give us something to work with, and hopefully in an organized fashion, rather than spray from a pellet gun. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I wrote the below response before seeing your response above [with edit conflict]. I have not had a chance to read this most recent response it yet. I believe I am done editing for tonight. Thanks for the discussion. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @SandyGeorgia: I disagree that "Kashmiri removed the very balance some of you are asking for." In fact, Kashmiri's edit to the first two sentences was indeed an improvement and more WP:NPOV, but at some point that got reverted and the first two sentences again look like they did before Kashmiri's edit.
I do agree that keeping in the text saying 50 countries agree with Guaido--while not mentioning that other major countries like Russia, China, etc. disagreed--did make this sentence buried in the second paragraph less WP:NPOV. That material did find its way back into the WP:LEDE, so I'm a bit confused as to why you are bringing up this old edit which has already been reverted.
The problem with the first two sentences of the WP:LEDE is that they make it sound like Wikipedia endorses Guaidó. With readers' short attention span, a significant percentage of readers will not get to the middle of paragraph two that mentions the other countries that disagree. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not parsing your second to last para. Kashmiri's version had no mention whatsover of those opposed to Guaido, which I thought odd and unbalanced, but finally agreed to disagree. The "familiar geopolitical sides" source appeared later and provides a way to present better context than a tally of countries. I'm bringing it up again to make sure we agree that both sides should be represented, which kashmiri disagreed with, and that both the tally and the geopolitical should be presented, because that's what virtually every reliable source has done for months now. And if saying what practically every reliable source says (is recognized as acting President of Venezuela by 54 governments)—which I don't see—makes it sound like Wikipedia endorses Guaidó, them why not add back the balance that we had before in the same sentence? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Another thought: at one point, we had compromised on "partially recognized acting president" (with a link to the list of countries) to completely avoid the counting construction. That always left me wondering which part of him was recognized: waist up or waist down. For several months now, reliable sources have been using the tally, 54, to explain who he is; finding an alternate expression to eliminate counting might work to lower your concern that it "makes it sound like Wikipedia endorses Guaido". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

General scope[edit]

I may be misunderstanding, but my read so far is that Kashmiri wanted minimum politics in the article, cut a lot of what I called balance saying that belonged only in the presidential crisis article, make this straight bio. I am interpreting that David T wants more info about the level of dispute while Kashmiri wanted none, and Carrite wants no arm wrestling. Since it was Kashmiri that removed most of what some of you are now asking for, more guidance is needed on how to please all of you. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the different positions taken, so please clarify. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

  • David T wants more info about the level of dispute. No. I want the article to report accurately (and WP:NPOV) the facts regarding Guaidó's rapid rise to power and on his self-proclaimed presidency as they are articulated in the WP:RS. More is not required--accuracy is required, particularly in the WP:LEDE.
I have no problem with having significant details of the recent events of his claimed presidency in the WP:BODY, as long as it is WP:NPOV and accurate. The WP:LEDE should probably be shorted and made more biographical.
Citations: I do not see a problem with too many citations in the WP:LEDE. I believe Carrite's concern about citations is that their necessity was a result of problems from the text, text that was not WP:NPOV. Removing the citations will not fix biased text, but actually exacerbate the problem, making the obvious bias even harder to detect. Instead, the text must be fixed to be WP:NPOV and accurately reflect what is in the cited (or uncited) WP:RS of the WP:LEDE.
I agree with Kashmiri's statement A number of editors have expressed reservations about the obvious, blatant bias in the article, only to be met with rebuttals. I will also add here the worrying use of manipulation techniques, characteristic of propaganda pieces (use of peacock terms and phrases; passing of propaganda terms as objective; selective citations; etc.. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Understood in general terms. (We disagree on the history, and the extent to which RS are represented, but getting in to that is not productive, and it has been repeated enough.)

You said: The WP:LEDE should probably be shorted and made more biographical.

If the kinks are worked out of the body of an article first, the lead flows more easily by following the lead guideline:

The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents ... The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.

To be "made more biographical" is not precisely what the guideline calls for, and this article is long enough now to have a properly summarized four-paragraph lead, per MOS:LEADLENGTH. If you don't mind being patient, I'd rather not get bogged down in this and find it is a better use of time to focus on content and work on the lead later. Too much time is lost in back-and-forth if one tries to tune a lead before the body is nailed down. For now, I pulled info from the lead per Carrite, and the lead is too short and does not summarize the article. But later on that ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

General questions[edit]

Two other things:

David Tornheim, you have offered the French, Spanish, Chinese, Russian and Turkish Wikipedias as directions you want us to go in.
  • MaoGo says the French article is outdated, and it's easy to see it's tiny, and I can't glean much from there;[22] please explain what reliable source from there you want us to use.
  • I've looked at the Spanish article, and it doesn't fit your characterization. It is clearly a translation of an earlier version of this article, but quite outdated with no recent work, and a ton of irrelevant detail poured into the lead. Since I speak Spanish, I think I can state with some certainty that there's nothing there; if there's a source from there you want this article to use, please provide. (I've also looked BTW at Italian and Portuguese, nothing there.)
  • So that leaves China, Russia and Turkey. Since I speak Spanish, I don't have need of translation tools and have never learned to use them. I have no clue how I am supposed to look at those articles to pull out reliable sources, so please pass me a cluestick, and let me know which reliable source in those articles you want used. All I can tell from the Russian article is that it's minimal, and has only 15 sources. I don't know how else to satisfy your concern since I can't read those articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Please read my previous comments about the other Wikipedias. I did not say I "offered the French, Spanish, Chinese, Russian and Turkish Wikipedias as directions you want us to go in." [emphasis added]. I offered them for comparison to show that our article is biased. With multiple editors weighing in right now agreeing that there is bias, it would likely be more productive to discuss ways to eliminate the bias rather than try to copy the material from the other less mature articles. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Regardless, without reliable sources from those articles, there's nothing actionable for me to work on here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Another query. David Tornheim, if I am reading correctly, you are objecting to the sentences where you say the content isn't verified by the source because Guaido announcements and positions are stated in National Assembly voice. There's been kind of a shotgun approach here, so I may misunderstanding your statements. If my understanding is correct, Guaido was/is President of the National Assembly, and often speaks in that capacity. How would you have the article distinguish? Please advise if I am reading correctly your concerns, and an example of how you would deal with him having dual positions would help. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: Guaido was/is President of the National Assembly, and often speaks in that capacity. That's like saying that Mitch McConnell speaks for the Senate and Nancy Pelosi speaks for the House of Representatives. Legislative bodies typically articulate opinions via Resolution_(law) not via the whims of the chair. Perhaps the rules in Venezuela are different, but I doubt it. I'd like some WP:RS if you want to claim that.
Regardless of what the actual rules of National Assembly, the WP:RS that I have reviewed says unambiguously that he was speaking for himself, while (in my opinion) his statements deliberately give the impression that *He* considers himself to be speaking on behalf of the entire country. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, I'll look at this with respect to the sources then when I have time; Jamez42 is the one who understands Venezuela parliament the best though. He might offer specifics and elaborate whether there are differences relative to normally functioning legislative bodies in other countries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
From what I gather Guaidó has needed to voice the agreement of most, if not all, the oppositions parties in the National Assembly. Political consultant Pedro Pedrosa has claimed that the Statute Governing the Transition to Democracy has actually prevented Guaidó from taken some actions, while acting in agreement with the Assembly. Of course, this is more of a political analysis than a procedural one. Formal statements by the Assembly are called acuerdos. If needed, I can look up in the Internal Regulation of the National Assembly, which includes all of its rules. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Jamez42, I haven't yet found the time to sort out that misnamed citation in the section that concerns David, and I am busy all day. As soon as I get to it, I will ping you if I am still hung up on the way to address this concern using the NA procedures. We are all very busy editors; it's not necessary for you to take too much time on this until I can get the rest of that para sorted. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: It's alright, thank you for your concern :) I forgot to answer this some time ago, I'm currently busy too but I have some time to answer. I don't think I can think the citation for the time being either, though, so I'll be alert of any advancements. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
In this edit, I added citations to National Assembly participation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Bias of Mainstream Media[edit]

Sources: Failed ‘Coup’ a Fake Corporate News Story Designed to Trick Venezuelan Soldiers—and US Public, Dave Lindorf,; and Once Again, Mainstream Media Get It Wrong on Venezuela, by Michael Fox, The Nation, about the "uprising", April 30, which leaves no great honour to some of the main US news channels, from CNN to NYT. Comments? Huldra (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Some of this is already being discussed in Talk:2019 Venezuela uprising, maybe you should post there. --MaoGo (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I am not aware of sources with a well known bias being used in most Venezuela articles. If you would like to introduce sources like The Nation and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, we could also add National Review and Media Research Center for balance. By adding and attributing opinion from dueling biases, we might not get a better read, just a very long article. (It is interesting that back when all of the mainstream media was lined up with Chavez, no one thought them biased.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
To me this reads a bit like a case of false balance (depending on what specific National Review and Media Research Center articles you have in mind), as the Nation piece isn't merely reporting an account of the events that contradicts other sources: it is directly asserting that other generally-reliable sources have misled the public . If we consider The Nation to be reliable, then this article implores us to reevaluate whether mainstream American and British media can be considered a priori reliable in this context (although the article does also seem to suggest that the most erroneous reporting was "in the moment" and that sources like the BBC have corrected earlier reports, potentially making this point moot). signed, Rosguill talk 00:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill mostly beat me to it but I wanted to emphasize that bias and reliability are context-dependent, and bias and reliability are not mutually exclusive. Our decisions should thus be made on context, not blind faith in the perennial sources list. The FAIR article and the Nation article for example contain substantive criticisms of several sources used in this article indicating that they have clear bias and sloppy reporting when it comes to these topics (including several outright falsehoods on the part of CNN and NYT in particular). In my view it's clear that these should not be treated as unbiased sources in light of these shocking errors and falsehoods. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
^Indeed. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
"To me this reads a bit like" wanting to have it both ways. If we agree to acknowledge the "sloppy reporting" (which has BTW gotten better in the last two years), we have to recognize it in sloppy terms like "self-annointed" which completely ignore the Venezuelan Constitution, democratically-elected institutions, and law (along with numerous other examples, where by going to local or Spanish-language sources, one finds a more complete story). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Huldra: Thanks for providing that. We should always strive for balance based on WP:NPOV using the best sources available. Sources like these help show the full picture and can help us make an accurate article. Noam Chomsky speaks at length about now the mainstream media can act as a propaganda arm of the U.S. administration, advancing the administration's version, slant and goals, without sufficient critical review, real fact checking, or striving for balance and completeness. See Propaganda model. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I read the FAIR article and I fail to see what this has to do with anything. Sure we have to be careful with the sources, sometimes news outlets can get events wrong, specially when the coverage is happening live. But that's it, some of those errors have even been corrected by the journal editors (and some are TV coverage that we do not do) . The FAIR article may serve as a reminder for less experienced users (and journalists) but I don't know how it adds to the un/reliability of the sources. We still need sources to cover the information here, if not we will have to wait until books are written about this (and then we will probably have even a more difficult task arguing which books are reliable). Experienced Wikipedia users here try to cross-check and continuously revise the informations provided. Also it is a good practice to wait a little bit and not rush on the news like it happened with the uprising article --MaoGo (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by ... gringos working in Venezuela under difficult circumstances, in the "fog of war", and not quite knowing their way around. FAIR points out errors made by international media, while making just as many errors themselves.

As with MaoGo, I can't take much useful from the FAIR report, except that they make the point that the international media often gets it wrong, all of us well know that, reporting from Caracas is difficult, we can spot problems like the one alleged by FAIR, and we often to always doublecheck and crosscheck with Spanish-language local sources. For example, local sources know that long-time caraqueños refer to the area around the airport as La Carlota, from the days before it was militarized and before CCCT was there. Wikipedia never reported La Carlota was taken, because anyone could see on social media (which is how news happens in Venezuela because of press censorship) that it wasn't taken, and I at least never heard any person claiming it was.

Troubling though is that some of the FAIR errors are not just errors but outright distortions or lies. FAIR says:

But as of this story’s May 7 posting date, no correction has yet been made by the Times concerning the article’s fundamental and far more serious errors of reporting, such as there had been “a predawn takeover of a military base in the heart of the capital,”

But the New York Times article says:

The gamble by Mr. Guaidó was brazen: A predawn takeover of a military base in the heart of the capital, Caracas. The deep symbolism of such an act, it was hoped, would help galvanize soldier and citizen alike to end Mr. Maduro’s authoritarian rule.

The Times does not claim there had been a predawn takeover. FAIR seems to have lied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
In contrast, The Nation is more subtle than FAIR in claims about what Guaido said and from where he said it: rather than claiming Guaido said they had taken La Carlota, The Nation says, "He insinuates that they have taken the Carlota military base in eastern Caracas." FAIR calls reports of "thousands" a hoax, but cites The Nation which says: "Despite these setbacks, Guaidó led thousands in a march heading west from Altamira". FAIR cites The Nation as "excellent", yet they are several times contradictory. The Nation is a political opinion piece written by the narrator of Puente Llaguno: Claves de una Masacre, which is a lesser version of X-Ray of a Lie, which deals with Cscr-featured.svg The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film) (edit: order reversed SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)), so bias is likely.

Why are we talking about media bias in coverage of the 30 April event at Guaido's bio? This topic is covered at 2019 Venezuela uprising, and there are enough analysis pieces mentioned there that a section on media coverage of 30 April could probably be added. I don't find anything from these articles to add to Guaido's bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The FAIR article is obviously referring to an earlier version of the article, titled “Venezuela Crisis: Guaidó Calls for Uprising as Clashes Erupt.” The article you link to is called, "Venezuelan Opposition Leader Steps Up Pressure, but Maduro Holds On," which was updated after the coup attempt failed. Note that both versions say Guaido was at an air force base, when in fact he was outside it. The clear implication was that he had taken over the airport and was surrounded by its soldiers (although one would have expected them to be airmen.) That's the message that Guaido, the NYT and the U.S. State Department wanted to convey, although it was false. And it's no defense to say that the text could be interpreted differently, since good reporting is unambiguous. I was watching the news that morning and got the impression that Guaido had taken over the air base, although when I looked at the cellphone images they appeared to be framed to give the illusion that Guaido had a large number of soldiers behind him. TFD (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
...earlier version which is now corrected (bias or not). If there are any errors still, please discuss at Talk:2019 Venezuela uprising--MaoGo (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks TFD, but I linked to the article FAIR linked to in making the claim. Again, be reassured that most editors working on these articles are well aware of the underlying point: the international media often gets it wrong.

The 2019 Venezuela uprising article could well warrant an entire media analysis section, and there are numerous opinion pieces and analysis reports posted to the talk page there that could be used. Someone might take that on: I don't have time. I hope the earliest versions of that article reassure you that Wikipedia didn't jump or get it wrong; we check local sources on unfolding events. People who know Caracas can recognize inside vs. near La Carlota, and I see no erroneous claims or even insinuations from Guaido; let's use hard news reporting, not biased opinion for that. These opinions may find a place in media analysis for the uprising article; I can't see a place for this content in this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  • @David Tornheim:, it's probably not controversial; lots of editors on that article presented media analysis sources they wanted included, but no one has had time to write it. There are half a dozen or more analysis pieces listed on talk (including the FAIR article), so there is a good indication that a Media analysis section is warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

FAQ needed about false allegations of paid editing[edit]

User talk:SandyGeorgia#15 minutes of non-fame (Paid Editing)

I suspect an FAQ about the false allegations on Reddit are going to be needed on Venezuela articles. For now, there is discussion on my talk, but it is not very well organized, since I was furious when I wrote it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

While I strongly sympathize with the unpleasant experience of being accused of paid editing, I did want to note that it is possible for a passing observer to observe bias without that necessarily being linked to the Reddit allegations, or to you personally. Speaking for myself, I noticed severe slant in many articles about current events in Venezuela (not because of you specifically, to be clear) and I formed this opinion long before reading the posts on Reddit (which I wasn't aware of until you linked them on the uprising talk page). I understand that the allegations are frustrating but I hope that these unfortunate events don't close your mind to the possibility that the articles really are biased (just clearly not because of alleged paid editing on your part).
I say this only because this section (and the ones you've put on related articles), along with the associated edit summaries (e.g., "there goes the neighbourhood") carry an implication that the reason for the bias tags are primarily due to the allegations, but evidence for that seems shaky to me, and I would prefer to assume good faith (while acknowledging that that's difficult when you are being subjected to unreasonable allegations). The comment "there goes the neighbourhood" also sends a message that editors who have not previously edited on Venezuelan topics before are unwelcome, which I think would be better to avoid. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
An FAQ will still be needed. I have been a very high profile editor for many years. And I put this here in the hopes some people might stop by my talk and do the right thing: just ask :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I understand your view, but I just wanted to stress the importance of not throwing out criticism that may be legitimate along with the conspiratorial bathwater. I don't see any evidence that the bias tags added to this page had anything to do with the allegations on Reddit, and I'm concerned that if we appear to tar users who express dissent with that brush, it will have a chilling effect. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
It's hardly up to other editors to know whether someone is a paid editor or not. In my experience, such accusations are usually baseless - the vast majority are usually GF editors who just feel strongly for a particular cause. Here, I think we are facing a similar situation. A number of editors have expressed reservations about the obvious, blatant bias in the article, only to be met with rebuttals. I will also add here the worrying use of manipulation techniques, characteristic of propaganda pieces (use of peacock terms and phrases; passing of propaganda terms as objective; selective citations; etc.). As a long-standing editor, I did attempt to restore the balance to the article a few months ago, but one or two editors objected so strongly that I gave up. Life has better attractions than a Wikipedia fight. As of now, the only NPOV section of the article in my view is the "Electoral history" section - kudos to its author(s). All the others are thinly veiled attempts to legitimise one of two conflicted politicians in Venezuela, both with questionable legitimacy. It looks like what may be called, "the making of a leader", we have seen it in history many times. But I can't edit against someone who seemingly has unlimited time to edit on this topic. — kashmīrī TALK 10:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: I just went through all the comments on the reddit thread, most of which are critical of the assumption because of how ridiculous it is, many saying that as a complex and controversial subject the editors won’t be wide ranging because of prolonged interest and knowledge. I think that accurately sums up the situation and it’s pretty clear from our collective other edits that we aren’t bots or shills. I don’t think it’s a thing to worry about, just be angry and ignore. Kingsif (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm one outta two on "angry and ignore". The charge is out there, and has to be answered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Operation Freedom[edit]

I added a fourth paragraph to the WP:LEDE summarizing the material of the section Juan_Guaidó#Operation_Freedom. I invite further discussion. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I gave my general views, based on the lead guideline above. I generally avoid putting current events in the lead, and like to wait until we have the benefit of the perspective of time. I don't object to that text, and there's nothing wrong with it, but my view is that putting current news into the lead too quickly usually leads to stability and edit warring problems, as novice editors then want to chunk the whole story in to the lead. For example, the level of objection to the reliably sourced term "Freedom" has been a problem on other articles, and I might have waited for some consensus on that before adding a controversial term to the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC on infobox[edit]

I think a WP:RfC is needed on the infobox question; if people prefer:

  • 1. the long version (The "Ballers19"−version), seen here
  • 2. the short version (The "SandyGeorgia" version), seen here. Huldra (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    3. an intermediate version, seen here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support version 2, Huldra (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support version 2, this is a controversial situation where infobox parameters cannot convey nuance, and we should avoid the whole naming and succession issue by simply not having those parameters in the infobox-- cutting it down to a minimum. Everything in the infobox is in the article, but better explained with context. In this case, trying to find a way to simplify information to fit in infobox parameters creates POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    Support version 3, which I added per Kashmiri commentary below (the cuts to version 2 were deeper than necessary). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment As a main contributor at first in the Spanish article, I would say I support the long version since it specifies that the position is disputed while also being the infobox of an authority, where positions should be shown. However, this is a very controversial issue. If the short version helps in the consensus leans towards it, I'd support it. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    Jamez42 I am so allergic to infoboxes that I had not realized the "disputed" tag could be placed differently in this case. If it stays where it can be seen, that resolves my concern, by providing mention of and a link to the dispute.[23] If it moves back down where it's barely visible, then the infobox is more trouble than its worth. Sorry we didn't have a discussion before RFC was launched, as you could have informed me then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
It's alright, this RfC may be helpful :) --Jamez42 (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh, well, it didn't stick,[24] so back to version 2, gummed up RFC already. Discuss before launching RFC :) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I am not allergic to infoboxes, but I think there should be an attempt to have the "disputed" tags removed. And I don't see any chance of the "disputed" tag being removed with the present long infobox; that's all. Huldra (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alternative long version as shown in this edit [25], although the phrase "Disputed with Nicolas Maduro" seems awkward to me (what about just "Disputed"?). Failing that, I prefer the short version (version 2). I share SandyGeorgia's concerns about visibility. signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alternative long version We could denote "Acting President" under the office of President of the National Assembly. This reflects the current political situation where he is simply acting like a president instead of actually being one. - Sleyece (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The short version looks unprofessional. It gives off the appearance that there's nothing to say about Guaidó. If we go for this one, I'd prefer removing the infobox altogether, and just having the picture with a caption. DaßWölf 02:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    That's habituation (to my eye, Wikipedia bloated infoboxes look unprofessional ... YMMV :) Anyway, the concern is that the reader does not see the "disputed" with the office, so yes, removing the whole darn thing and just having a picture is an option I would like as well. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This is not an isolated issue. There were anti-popes, Jacobite and Carlist pretenders, French legitimists, orleanists and bonapartists, eastern European governments in exile, provisional governments etc. I think there should be a uniform policy for handling these cases. TFD (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    So, why can't the infobox be designed in a way that the "disputed" can be moved up, right next to the office, so that it is visible? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
That would seem to be best. Info-boxes are not designed to explain complex issues, Guaido main notability derives from his claim to be the legitimate acting president of Venezuela. TFD (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alternative long version: Gives a decent summary, though replace the disputed sentence with just (disputed).----ZiaLater (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Short version. (Summoned by bot) It is not the job of Wikipedia to adjudicate international disputes. The longer one is POV. I agree with it, but my opinion doesn't matter. Coretheapple (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support version 1, The current info box is the formal way of presenting the information. Although this topic is disputed, it still looks like the correct format to present this. If you look at other articles in different languages, they do not discuss this and do not have any issues. We should follow their lead, especially the Spanish version. Infoboxes are just there to give a sum of who the officeholder is, it still maintains a neutral position. If you are in favor of removing the Guaido infobox, then the Nicolas Maduro box should be removed as well. In that case, leave it how it is. Just an FYI, I was not the first person to give Juan Guaido an info box, and this issue did not come up until recently. I do not understand why can't it be left alone.The Spanish, French, Russian, Japanese, Korean, and Italian versions all have info boxes. It would be absurd to delete ours for an invalid reason. Ballers19 (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support a mix of the two. I see no reason to excise date and place of birth, names of wife and children, and political affiliation from the infobox. Leave out only controversial fragments, everything else may stay. — kashmīrī TALK 07:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    I have added an interemediate version; the cuts to version 2 were deeper than needed.
    I oppose any "mix of the two" that does not completely nix all offices held by Guaido. Leaving a partial listing of elected offices held creates by POV by implying he does not hold the office of acting president. Leaving out "only controversial" acting presidency, while listing other offices, makes a statement that he is not legitimately holding an office. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Still supporting version 1. It looks more formal and is easier to locate information for readers. My mind won't be changed.Ballers19 (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alternative long version - The long version contains information that is controversial and doesn't properly convey the disputed nature of his "presidency". The short one just purges all information, with little regard to how controversial it is. The alternative version sounds like a decent enough compromise. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Primary vs. secondary sources on polls[edit]

@ZiaLater: to clarify the polling edits. Your first edit here, removed the secondary sources mentioning Meganalysis polls, and replaced them with a single primary source, Meganalisis, leaving the article with six uses of a primary source in place of secondary sources that discuss the primary source. The Meganalysis source is dreadful; one has to dig through pages to find the information referenced in the secondary sources, and even then, the slides go by so fast that it is difficult to verify the information. It is helpful to have the primary source, but more useful to have the secondary source.

I reverted it because repairing content in table format is harder than simply starting over, and because there were multiple problems.

You partially corrected the primary sourcing problem in your second version, but you still removed the original secondary sources to Meganalisis polls, replacing them with one new source that covers only the newest poll. And now we have WP:CITATIONOVERKILL (the Italian source is unnecessary). And text that preferences the raw results of one survey over all others in text, while removing relevant secondary-sourced text, and omitting context supplied by secondary sources (for example, "In Venezuela, though the number of people who say they recognize Guaidó as the legitimate president has dwindled to about 50 percent since January, his approval remains much stronger than Maduro’s abysmal 4 percent."). Using a recent survey that is widely divergent from all other surveys, preferencing its conclusions in text, while omitting analysis of any other survey in text, is POV. Thank you for partially restoring the secondary sourcing in your subsequent edit, but some cleanup here is still needed. I will put the article inuse for repair. Please come to talk to discuss issues like these before reinstating, as repairing content presented in table format is time consuming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Other problems: there is no reason to remove Colombian views of Guaido from a polling chart on Guaido's bio page. Colombia is a neighboring country, and has received the brunt of the immigration and humanitarian crisis: Colombian views on Guaido are relevant on this page.

The Miami Herald source mentions that this latest survey measures Guaido's approval rating, when the question asked on the survey was "After 23 January, who do you perceive today as president of Venezuela, Guaido or Maduro". The polling question had nothing to do with "approval rating"; Miami Herald got it wrong.[26] (It is for sloppiness like this that Datanalysis is a more respected pollster than Meganalisis). To my knowledge, there has never been an 84% approval rating of Gauido, we have a survey showing 61% approval, so the Miami Herald is demonstrably wrong. If anyone can produce the Miami Herald's imaginary 84% Guaido approval rating, I'll take 100 lashes with a wet noodle. (For those who are not familiar with Venezuelan politics, the metrics used here are affected by those who support other political leaders and who take a harder, conservative line like Maria Corina Machado and Henrique Capriles, and who would also be presidential contenders if there were elections.)

The La Patilla secondary source supplied is useful because it supplies the polling data, but has no mention whatsoever of this aspect. It deals with a completely different matter: 89.7% of Venezuelans consider they are living a genocide, 91% want a military intervention to "salir de" (be rid of) Maduro, and 88% are opposed to dialogue with Maduro.

Politico (a political commentary site) also mixes up "perception as president" with "approval rating". The text introduced is based on secondary sources which made demonstrable errors, and reports that are divergent from all other sources are preferenced in Wikipedia's voice no less, with no attribution. This is POV, UNDUE editing. I will add attribution and tag the sentence; my suggestion is that it be completely removed until it can be better supported by other polls or secondary sources. WP:CITATIONOVERKILL is not the way to solve the problems with this text. This is a problem of WP:RECENTISM, and before adding text to what was previously only a chart (let the reader dcide), we should wait for further analysis. Until other polls look at the divergence, examine what is behind it, we do not know what it is driving the differnce, and secondary sources are not helping; we do not know if the drop in "presidential perception" is because Venezuelans who, in the same poll, overwhelmingly want a foreign intervention, are now throwing their support behind hard-liners Capriles or Machado. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Guaidó does not hold any political position in Colombia, nor is he running for one. He is a Venezuelan politician. The people of Colombia do not have any say in whether or not he holds any political position in Venezuela. Polls from Colombia therefore do not belong on this page. If consensus is to keep them (which is far from clear at this point), they should not be listed in the same table as Venezuelan polls. A table listing opinion polls of Donald Trump or Justin Trudeau would not include polls from Canada or the US respectively; those would be in a separate section (if included at all), and for good reason. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Guaidó may not hold political power in Colombia, but Colombia's politics is turning around the migrant crisis and in part around the decisions of Duque to support Guaidó.--MaoGo (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
If Colombian polls of Guaidó have bearing on Duque's popularity or some other aspect of Colombian politics, perhaps the polls should be moved to Duque's page or another article on Colombian politics. They certainly don't belong here given that, as I said above, the people of Colombia do not have any say in whether or not he holds a Venezuelan political position. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia:. @MaoGo:, @Cmonghost: According to WP:PRIMARY:
"Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."
In my edits, the Meganálisis source was not intepreting anything, this is data provided by a polling company. This data that Meganálisis collected gave percentages of recognition of Guiadó as president. Above this data that was in the table, I placed a sentence utilizing secondary sources which did interpret the data, with those secondary sources stating that Guaidó's recognition has declined over 30% in the past few months. So, if we have a primary source just giving the percentages, they are just percentages and we do not have to interpret them. If there is an interpretation of the percentages saying "Guaidó's popularity has dropped", we do need a secondary source.----ZiaLater (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Cmonghost: you make a good point about mixing Colombia into the table; Colombia can be removed from the table and prosified in the public opinion section.[27] Zia, my point was, please do not REMOVE secondary sources when they are provided; in terms of whether we even report a poll, it helps to have secondary sources that mention them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
That works for me too. --MaoGo (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: the reason we are "suddenly changing the wording for this particular poll" is that it is only in this series of edits that you brought forward the actual pollster's website, which is dreadfully unreadable. It is set up as a series of slides that go by so fast, I am unable to read the content. I literally had to open the website on my iPad, and get screenshots of each slide flashing by, to then be able to read the page via an image. If you know of a way to freeze the pages long enough to read them, I'm interested. I only had time to do the most recent poll; optimal would be to go back and do all of them correctly, but sitting there taking screenshots on an iPad is time consuming. Perhaps I'm a techno-dummy and you know something about how to read that miserable website that I don't know. I am happy to correct all of the entries if I can read the website without screenshots. Previously, the table relied only on secondary sources; now that we also have the primary source, there may be other corrections needed.

It is important that we not leave impressions for the reader that are not addressed by the primary source, and not analyzed by secondary sources. When a poll shows that "89.7% of Venezuelans consider they are living a genocide, 91% want a military intervention to 'salir de' (be rid of) Maduro, and 88% are opposed to dialogue with Maduro", yet the same poll shows a precipitous drop in perception of Guaido as president, with a corresponding increase in "undecided", it becomes clear that we should make sure our numbers add to 100%, to tell the whole story (support is likely switching to the hard-line conservatives Machado and Capriles, as people perceive that Guaido's amnesty law and conciliatory approach and failure to call Article 187 earlier has failed). Your version did not give numbers that add to 100, and yes, we should go back and fill in the detail correctly so the reader can draw their own conclusions. The wording should reflect the question asked in the poll, not the "politically appropriated" term understood by non-Venezuelans (approval rating). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

International context[edit]

Hi @Jamez42: Your reversion of N192's addition of international context to the lede was unwarranted. Your one-word edit summary just says "WP:UNDUE", but as far as I can tell there is nothing undue about giving context for numbers that we present---in fact, I would argue that what's undue is presenting only the number of countries that have recognized Guaido without putting that number in context. If 100 scientists were to claim that climate change isn't real, for example, it would be important to put that number into context; giving the bare figure alone is a misrepresentation. I therefore propose either re-adding the context or removing the number entirely, changing the text accordingly. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Venezuela president recognition map 2019.svg
@Cmonghost: Hi. I'm including the image that we have used to show the international positions to bear in mind why this is troublesome. Most of the international community per se, countries in Africa and in Asia, have not taken a stance on the issue. Assuming that silence mean an intrinsic rejection of Guaidó, you can easily come into conclusions like these; on contrast, here's a comparison between the explicit supports. We could include the number of countries that have explicitly rejected him as president to offer balance, which I think will not be very helpful, or not include his recognition as president at all, which wouldn't be neutral because of its relevance. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jamez42: The page Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis notes that "104 nations have stated their positions; 54 countries have recognized Guaidó as acting president". If using the total number of nations in the UN is a problem since some have not made any statements, why not include this 104 figure, as was done there? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@Cmonghost: Thanks for the defense. But it seems that your "104 nations have stated their positions; 54 countries have recognized Guaidó as acting president" quote has been removed from the cited article. Perhaps, a tally would be more acceptable, but transparent with the Guaidó article (ex. 54 governments have expressed support for Guaidó out of the 104 who publicly stated positions out of the 193 recognized by the U.N.). — N192 18:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@N192: I like this phrasing better. It might be a little long, but it could offer balance if there are editors unsatisfied with the current status. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The reverted edit here contained WP:SYNTH and WP:OR; reliable sources do not frame it in that context (for any number of good reasons). By the way, it was blatant WP:OR at the Responses article as well, inserted here. How much more original research does it get than counting the entries on the page and stating the result in Wikipedia's voice? Thanks for pointing that out; I removed that edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
It is up to reliable sources to provide the context which so far they have not. For us to do that is implicit synthesis. TFD (talk) 04:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
To maintain diplomatic relations with a government is equal to recognising that government as the lawful representative of that country. It doesn't need a special statement. FYI, a diplomatic mission that does not recognise the authority of the foreign minister instantly looses accreditation. So, to count only countries that publicly expressed support to Maduro's government is an unintentional (or intentional?) falsification of the question of international recognition. — kashmīrī TALK 19:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not counting; reliable sources are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Since diplomatic recognition ≠ press release, any source that claims otherwise is not reliable. — kashmīrī TALK 06:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Of course it is falsification. It's similar to the Coalition of the Willing, 30 countries most of which were tiny countries that owed the U.S. and provided minimal contributions. (For example Palau, population 10,000, an associated state of the U.S. with no army, ironically not now supporting Guaido.) But until reliable sources mention it, the article can't. TFD (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I really don't see the line of reasoning. When referring to Guaidó, plenty of sources say "recognized by interim president by more than 50 countries". It states both a limitation and a clarification, and it's a balanced way to present both points of view. --Jamez42 (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
It's similar to saying that Maduro received 67.8% of the vote in the last presidential election. It's partial information in order to support an implicit bias. Both statements bolster the legitimacy of the two men, by neglecting to explain the full story. TFD (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources state over and over (ad nauseum) that "more than 50" or 54 countries support Guaido. It's not a matter of bias; it's a matter of stating a number that is hard to ignore, no matter what the balance of other countries do. And every reliable source states it this way. (But this brings us back to the point I raised with Neutrality; we had one source that explained the geopolitical divide in support, succinctly, and every time we delete the AP attribution, we end up back with these discussions.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Multiple issues update[edit]

We currently have a multiple issues template on this article. One of the issues reads "Material in the article does no accurately represent what is in the cited WP:RS", has this been cleared out since? I understand that the second one, neutrality, is still under discussion. --MaoGo (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Busy three weeks, I have not had time to revisit. I hope to catch up this week. My understanding is that the "self-declared" aspect needs to be addressed somehow (I suggest a separate section stating that on one side, highly reliable sources use the term, balanced by the other side, sources that explain appointment by National Assembly-- I just haven't had time to get to it, but am planning to build this section).

The harder issue to address here is that NOWHERE on Wikipedia does any article explain the basic building blocks of how Guaido came to be appointed Acting Pres by the only "legitimate, democratically elected institution left in the country", so building the info David Tornheim asked for has to start from scratch ... Maduro should not have been appointed VP rather Cabello, recall effort, ANC irregularities, NA, TSJ irregularities, 2018 election irregularities, and so on ... the whole nine yards explaining how the NA came to be reported by reliable sources as the only legitimate institution left in Venezuela. This information was never developed on en.Wiki. I do not understand why. Going back and finding the sources to build this content is time consuming, and until that is done, it is not surprising that people without full information may view this article as biased. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Aside from the neutrality issue, are the sources provided covering what is written in the article?--MaoGo (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
The Spanish Wikipedia had way more activity in the previous years; the tables have turned, to put it in a way. There's even a Spanish article discussing all the process of the recall referendum, as well as its international mediation. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I removed the citation-text consistency template, this might be reverted, but I really think we are dealing with a large issue that can be summarized by using one template about neutrality. Correcting the sources has never been an issue, aside from one or two examples given above. This has been and can be quickly fixed if indicated. Also the multiple issue template avoids to point out that the neutrality template should not be removed until the discussion has been cleared. --MaoGo (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Leaving here the description of the Template:Cleanup that I just removed:
This tag is intended to identify pages that need wikification or the correction of spelling, grammar, typographical errors, tone, and other similar, non-content-focused changes. Use this tag when the article needs improvement per WP:BETTER.
--MaoGo (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality edits[edit]

I will look at the wording and POV balance right now to try to get rid of the final tag. Express any particular concerns here, this is a lot to read through so I may miss something.----ZiaLater (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is more content explaining Guaidó position that Sandy wanted to implement as well as the infobox issue.--MaoGo (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
If we can agree in a number of points to treat, we may replace the template with {{POV check}} or preferably {{POV check|section}}.--MaoGo (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@MaoGo: I would not mind a more independent POV check. You can place that if you like.----ZiaLater (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@ZiaLater: I would proceed, but Template:POV check requires a list of specific issues to be considered (and POV section needs a section). --MaoGo (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
We still need to deal with the "self-appointed", but I am in a car on a hotspot for days, so can't do much more than barely keep up for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH Graph[edit]

Recognition of Juan Guaidó polls.png

This graph is WP:SYNTH, that does not fall under the basic mathematic manipulation of numbers per WP:CALC. It takes numbers from different samples, with different sampling methods and sample sizes, different confidence intervals, etcetera, and synthesizes those numbers in a unique way that is not supported by any reliable source. I suggest the graph should be removed and nominated for deletion. Further, it is confusing as the numbers don't add to 100%, since multiple categories are left out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree, this graph would not be accepted in any type of serious publication, not even in a newspaper.--MaoGo (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Impru20: Do you have any opinion or recommendation with this graph? I attempted to base this graph and other graphs on your File:OpinionPollingSpainGeneralElection2015.png file, which I was very impressed with. On previous articles like 2015 Venezuelan parliamentary election, 2017 Venezuelan regional elections, 2017 Venezuelan referendum and 2017 Venezuelan Constituent Assembly election, similar graphs do not seem to be an issue, but it seems any time polls surrounding Guaidó are discussed in this article, they face a lot of scrutiny.----ZiaLater (talk) 06:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I cannot speak for previous plots, we would have to check one by one. Also most plots are made by you? The thing about Impru's graph is
(1) It seems to use more graph data than in the Venezuelan plots but
(2) I cannot get enough details about Imprus graph to understand it completely,
(3) did Impru just take every poll he could find an calculated an "average"? That does not escape WP:SYNTH.
You should be able to plot the same pollster at different times but not average them out, if not, anybody malicious enough could add a lot of slightly biased pollsters to get the result they wanted. --MaoGo (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I can't speak for other countries and for other charts different than those I made myself (since there are literally dozens or even hundreds or such charts in Wikipedia opinion polling articles, every one using different systems of calculation), but in what involves those of Spain, they are made through Excel using all polls listed in the respective Wikipedia article, then the trendline is calculated by Excel itself by using the moving average trendline function in the chart. That by itself would be allowed under WP:CALC. What could be closest to SYNTH, I think, is what number you choose for the moving average, i.e. a 6-poll moving average, 7, 8, 9, 10-poll, etc; but that would only affect the line's smoothing, not the actual trend. In Spain, it is very frequent for such moving averages to be conducted by sources themselves, so this has actual backing (example 1, example 2). For other countries, I know that other methods for calculating trendlines are used, but you should ask those charts' authors as I can't speak for them.
On the issue of "biased" polls, this is a very controversial point; determining that there are biased pollsters, and which ones would these be, would be much more SYNTHy than mathematically calculating trendlines, in my opinion. Unless it can be perfectly sourced and determined that such polls exist (and, in such a case, these shouldn't be included in Wikipedia), I don't think we can determine that ourselves. Outliers exist in polling, and different polling methods used by the different pollsters may result in varying results, but that may itself is one of the essences of election opinion polling. Impru20talk 09:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@Impru20: Thanks for the explanation. I used all of the polls available for the average (I even had to search for the for the Datincorp poll) so I could provide a more thorough graph. I agree with WP:CALC, but this is just an average so it is a more simple calculation than a moving average. It was created with a simple average so that other users could verify the information. Anyways, the inclusion of the graph is not that important to me, I just thought that it would be a helpful tool.----ZiaLater (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
...but it seems any time polls surrounding Guaidó are discussed in this article, they face a lot of scrutiny. This comment is asking for a response. Extra attention was brought to the articles because of the prominence of recent events and because Venezuela was on the main page for months. Guaido's articles have (and should have) faced extra scrutiny because of three months on the main page, and that is a good thing, but this is unrelated to Guaido per se. It is hardly possible to go back and clean up all of these kinds of issues that exist throughout Venezuelan articles, but we can at least be aware going forward and aim for encyclopedic content, rather than articles that are driven by the goals of In The News, which are unencyclopedic by nature.

Now we have a large collection of primary sources in this article, which secondary sources did not apparently deem notable enough to mention. Not everything on the Internet belongs in a website that aims to be an encyclopedia. In the long run, how is the reader helped by seeing a collection of primary sources with no relevant secondary sourced analysis or indication of due weight? An original research SYNTHy graph using primary sources that have not been subjected to secondary analysis does not aid the reader. If it pretends to present information that no secondary source has provided, it is leading, not following. Wikipedia should not lead; it follows secondary sources and specifically avoids collecting primary sources for the purpose of original analysis. If we do it here, we have to be willing to accept when it is done in other articles, with potentially UNDUE primary sources that can be used to create false impressions. That the Spanish Wikipedia may or may not be doing same, and that this has been done in past Venezuelan articles (which all need cleanup for anyone who is interested in undertaking that work and getting dinged and accused of being a paid editor for having a high edit count) is irrelevant (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Nipping unencyclopedic content in the bud is appropriate; getting it when it occurs, while not having time to go back and correct everything in every Venezuelan article, does not make it about undue scrutiny on Guaido. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)