Talk:Juan Guaidó/Archive 2

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

Citations in lead[edit] Please see WP:LEAD and WP:LEADCITE.

Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.

I have removed the cn tags you placed; could you please specify which pieces of the material you believe are controversial or likely to be challenged? Cluttering the leads with multiple citations isn't desirable, unless material is controversial or likely to be challenged. Thanks.

Also, please have a look at WP:REDLINK-- redlinks are a good thing, because they encourage development of new articles for subjects that meet notability.

Thanks for the good copy edits! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Once you finish I am sure you'll find that most of the edits you reverted back were just nitpicking tweaks. One of my idiosyncracies, I am afraid, but I'll try to control the urge. Yours, 15:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh Robert, I love fellow edit nitpickers! Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mwanner:, regarding this edit, could you have a look at the comments I placed above, explaining that leads are summaries, and when text is summarized to a lead, it does not necessarily need a citation. Thanks for the good copyedit! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Thanks. I was unaware of that policy, though it makes good sense. It was, I fear, a drive-by edit when I choked on the existing text at that point. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Mwanner: no problem! But, by the way, it is not a policy-- only a guideline. If you encounter something in the lead that you find truly shocking, astonishing, dubious, or in need of a citation (like exact quote or some sort of medical data or something controversial), one could/should be provided. But the idea is that we should be able to write a summary of an article without citing every little piece, which is just ... ugly! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Have a look at the lead of Nicolás Maduro (cringeworthy) versus Featured article Ronald Reagan. The sole citation in the lead at Reagan is there because it is citing hard data; the rest of the article is (or was at the time it was promoted to Featured status) a summary of text already cited in the body. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


Roberto Marrero detained:

The Washington Post has it, but that site is paywalled for me: I need to access my libary:
Venezuelan intelligence unit detains chief of staff of opposition leader ...
38 mins ago - The arrest of Roberto Marrero, immediately condemned by the United States, could signal a new crackdown on the ... Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


Is there a translation in English for president encargado? It's different from interim president (presidente interino) and it's important to explain the thirty days period for summoning elections. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it literally means "in charge". The meaning is obviously "charged with and allowed to execute presidential responsibilities without being in the role". There isn't really a word for this. Maybe "President-in-command". Kingsif (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure how it would not be the same as "acting" president. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think acting president would be the closest translation. Is there an agreement to include the term? There have already been arguments against his legitimacy due to the confusion of both terms. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Where would we need to add or change the term? Are you suggesting throughout? Would that ripple through all the related articles? What does the Asamblea Nacional call him? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The proposal is to change "interim president" to "acting president", a footnote could be added to explain the difference. This is his official title and how the National Assembly, as well as many national outlets refer to him as. Both Guaidó and the National Assembly have explained that he will be interim president when the "usurpation ceases", meaning that the transitional government would start with renovated government branches; it would be only then when Guaidó would be responsible for summoning elections in 30 days. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Is there a source we can use to footnote this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I wanted to see if there was an article making a direct comparison, but I think talking about the Transition Law approved by the Assembly could help (El Comercio). On it, a maximum period of a year is established for the transitional government; the source specifies that it would start once Maduro steps down. It also establishes that if there's a "technical impossibility" to summon the election, the Assembly can "ratify the acting president as interim president". --Jamez42 (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, @Jamez42:, I think I see our work cut out for us. The new law defines acting, interim and transitional ?? So, we need to spell out what this new law is, probably in a section at 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis ? Unless we have enough sources to create a separate article that meets notability, which would mean we need more sources ? And then, once we have that spelled out, we can work through the changes in terminology wherever we have them. But, I am uncomfortable using elcomercio as our best source; they had a ton of stuff wrong on Venezuela Aid Live. Do we have Venezuelan sources discussing the new law, eg El Nacional or El Universal or Efecto Cocuyo ... ?? Does the law have a name? If we have multiple sources, and have a name, we can make a separate article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry! I had to get some sleep. The complete name is "Estatuto que Rige la Transición a la Democracia para Restablecer la Vigencia de la Constitución de la República Bolivariana De Venezuela" (PDF here), or simply "Ley de Estatuto que rige la transición". I was trying to provide the PDF in the website of the National Assembly, but I can't open the link. These are the most important articles I've found of national sources, including key points of the law, ar Efecto Cocuyo, El Pitazo, Prodavinci. The latter reminds me that I'm surprised I haven't recommended Prodavinci until now, I think they give excellent analyses. To clarify, interim is the say as transitional. If editors agree there's enough notability to the law, I support the idea of creating a separate one, just like it was done with the Amnesty Law. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The ideal place to explain in a general way the types of presidents (regular, acting, interim, "encargado", or whatever else is there) would be a section in the article President of Venezuela. Cambalachero (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I am in favor of writing an article for the law, so we can just link to it and not have to go in to all the detail everyplace it is used. Statute Governing the Transition to Democracy (Venezuela) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
More sources: El Nacional, ElUniversal, and Tal Cual Digital. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jamez42:, I am going to start in sandbox, and put it at Statute Governing the Transition to Democracy (tonight). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks beforehand, please let me know if you need a hand. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The mainstream media and goverments around the world that support Guaido refer to him as Interim President and not as Acting President, Wikipedia refering to him as Acting President will cause confusion as narrative in English media is him refering him as Interim President. RBL2000 (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • This discussion was started in three different places. @RBL2000: stated a preference to continue it at here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

How many children?[edit]

The WSJ says he is one of six,[1] another source (can't recall which, maybe it was Financial Times) said one of seven, and we have one of eight in the article, from the Washington Post. Need to resolve. I am wary of the Wall Street Journal article, because it also describes his father as a cab driver, while other sources call him a commercial pilot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Multiple sources reference his father living in Spain/Tenerife La Patilla, Ciber Cuba (?), Radio Mitre, Diario de Avisos, and some saying he's in Spain also mention he's a taxi driver. Wikipedia does allow you to acknowledge contradictory sources but also to use judgment if one source says X but 10 say Y, you needn't mention X, even if using that source for other information. I think emigrating to Spain in exile probably means he was a pilot, and has had to become a taxi driver - something Carabobo News Agency agrees with. Kingsif (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Brain hurt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I hope this does it.[2] Brain still hurts! Carabobo News Agency says his father has two children with second wife, and two with first, so the mystery deepens ... I just left it at "large family". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Done, but should not be archived; as other bios are written, we may get better info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I came across another source yesterday that mentioned both siblings and step-siblings, so while that may explain the confusion, that source was still not clear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Third name[edit]

The full name of Guaidó is Juan Gerardo Antonio Guaidó Márquez, here the sources: [3][4].--LuisZ9 (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't use those kinds of sources. The first is a primary source, and the second is a video of his mother talking. I know, many know, that is his mother, but what's the proof for Wikipedia standards of reliability? Knowing all of his names is not that important; respecting standards of sourcing is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The sources are enoug for me. --Panam2014 (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Based on what part of WP:V, WP:RS or WP:PRIMARY would you use original research and primary sources to add information to an article? I recognize that does this sort of thing, but does not, and what is to be gained by using original research and primary sources to add a second middle name? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
It is not a problem because we could use primary sources and there are no proof that the video is falso or his mother lies. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Please read WP:BLPPRIMARY, which says specifically NOT to do this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Not a problem, the rule is about facts when it is not clear (other kinds of primary sources and videos). In this case, it is not the problem to use this source.--Panam2014 (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

New article[edit]

This article was just created: Fabiana Rosales.--MaoGo (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@MaoGo: nice job in keeping that article in order! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)



I think we should add a footnote about his dismissal by Maduro. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

He wasn't dismissed, but rather inhabilitated by the Auditor general named by the Constituent Assembly. Guaidó responded saying that the auditor, Elvis Amoroso, is as illegitimate as the Constituent Assembly. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Also according to some experts, the Auditor is an administrative body, not a judiciary one. The auditor does not have the power to rule unfit any deputy . Let us keep this in mind when writing that piece: El Nacional.--MaoGo (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
On it, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Fire squad[edit]

Can this go anywhere? Miami Herald Members of the ANC called for "paredon" (firing squad) for Guaido during the immunity talks.--MaoGo (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I saw that on Instagram-- quite horrific. Do they forget that Chavez, responsible for hundreds of deaths, was pardoned? I guess because it is quite sensationalist, we should get consensus to add it, and if people agree, it can be added under Further threats? Miami Herald is paywalled for me ... will watch for it on other sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Here is a BBC piece on the ANC reactions: [5] That treats it more lightly.--MaoGo (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
And it's all over the news today, so I will go ahead and add something (I was reluctant earlier as few sources had picked it up). [6] [7] [8] Translation at CC SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
As far as I know the fire squads were also common during the Cuban Revolution, just like the "popular" tribunals. I'd suggest to make the connection like it was done with the latter. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
As TFD mentions below, we only have that connection made by Rubio, so I was reluctant to add it unless there is another source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
The Miami Herald source does not say that any members of the ANC called for firing squads. That was a claim by an American legislator, Marco Rubio. TFD (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I am double checking my work now (I was balancing about six different sources), but recall that the Rubio claim came after videos were produced ... the calls clearly came from the ANC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, I added these two quotes from sources (El Nacional and Miami Herald, but there were others), where the El Nacional quote was actually stronger than what I included in the article, and the Miami Herald does not attribute the original stance to Rubio. What they did say about Rubio, and I did not include, is his comparison and condemnation after the fact.

    El Nacional says "fusilamiento", which I first had as "execution", then changed to "shooting", but the better translation is probably "execution by shooting". What adjustments do you suggest? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

    • According to the Miami Herald, when María León, a member of the ANC, said that tribunals should be set up to try traitors, the crowd replied firing squad. TFD (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
      yes ... aren't we saying the same thing? The "crowd" was the ANC? They called for firing squad. I am confused about what you are asking/stating (I'll be away from computer for a few hours, back in this evening). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh, are you asking that we attribute it to the Miami Herald? But El Nacional and multiple other sources also have it ... so that seems mislead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, it wasn't clear to me who Leon was speaking to, but it was the ANC. It's not clear however whether there is sufficient support in the ANC for tribunals. TFD (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
The chants were made by ANC members; the important thing is that this was recorded, but it was only a response to the speech. It hasn't been proposed in the Constituent Assembly, as far as I know. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Correct (TFD, perhaps because I saw it first on social media, I understood that it was her speech before the ANC.) So, is the text OK now, or are adjustments needed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Did she mention Cuba? If not, then the comparison should be attributed to Rubio or removed. TFD (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I see now ... it read as if Leon said the part about Cuba tribunals, when it was the Miami Herald that drew the historical reference to her words about tribunals; I added the quote from the Miami Herald, and attributed it to them. [[9] (Rubio's comparison was to the firing squad portion.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 6 April 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)

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)

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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.[10] (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.[11] 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)

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)

"power void"[edit]

[This conversation as of this version has been copied to here: Talk:2019_Venezuelan_presidential_crisis#"power_void". Please make further comments on this issue there, unless it is more relevant to this Guaido article. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)]

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

The term "power void" exist in English and its related term in Spanish "vacío de poder" it is used to describe the situation in Spanish. By doing a quick search I do not find the term used in English articles but maybe there is another term(?)--MaoGo (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
The original term used in the Constitution of Venezuela is "falta absoluta", or "absolute absense", but for some reason it was translated in Wikisource as "permanently unavailable". --Jamez42 (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Do we have a policy on self-translating non-English-language documents when translations are already available? My impression was that it would be preferable to use an already available translation rather than doing it ourselves. The "permanently unavailable to serve" wording is what's used in the already available translation, and it's the wording I've seen quoted in most of the English-language sources explaining it (see the sources cited for the justification for the challenge on the other page). Wikisource says that version is "translated by Ministerio de Comunicación e Información", which if true would make it an official English version if I understand correctly that that's a ministry of the Venezuelan government. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 11:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

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

@David Tornheim: could you clarify which is the source/line in question? --MaoGo (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
@MaoGo: Constitution_of_Venezuela. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Are we in-line citing the constitution? I only see a footnote, also, we have the Constitution available in English. --MaoGo (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
OH! My greatest apologies, you are discussing the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis article. Right, let's see what we can do about that.--MaoGo (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
We are? I thought we were discussing the lead of this article. I just referred to the crisis article as an example of another article using the uncontroversial English translation (the same one you linked to). — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm aware of the policies around secondary sources, thanks for the reminder. We have gotten sidetracked on issues of the translation of the primary source. The initial wording I used is uncontroversial wording that's been quoted in (secondary) sources describing the matter used in other articles—as I just said above. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
@Cmonghost: I believe the secondary source should be translated--not the Constitution. If the secondary source quotes the Constitution, then I agree with you that probably an accepted translation of the Constitution would be acceptable rather than trying to translate the quote that comes directly from the Constitution.
If you can show me the secondary source(s) you are dealing with that would restore my confidence this entire discussion in not WP:OR. In the future, if you are talking about what secondary sources are saying, it would be helpful to point to them, so readers like me don't have to guess what you are talking about. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Here's an example that was provided to me by SandyGeorgia that outlines the reasoning for the Guaidó claim: [12]. The quotation is on that page. Here's another article: [13]. These are opinion pieces (from opposing perspectives) but it's difficult to find non-opinion pieces that actually quote the constitution. Anyway, I'm surprised this was controversial—that's why I didn't bother including the citation in my initial edit. It's the wording that's used elsewhere on Wikipedia when covering the challenge and it's the wording we have on Wikisource.
As a side note, I went and checked the other page I was referring to (2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis#Justification_for_the_challenge) and was shocked to find that it actually doesn't include any secondary sources (I assumed this Lawfare source was being used since SandyGeorgia referred me to it on that talk page). It only cites the constitution directly (which seems like an issue). Sorry for the confusion, I had been editing from my phone. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
That sounds like a problem including in the places where you say, "It's the wording that's used elsewhere on Wikipedia when covering the challenge and it's the wording we have on Wikisource." [Not necessarily a problem for Wikisource which may not have secondary sourcing rules]. If you can point me to those places, I would appreciate it.
Without independent reliable secondary sources (WP:RS), I believe most of this discussion is moot and the language from the Constitution should not be included because to do so would be WP:OR. I may start deleting it from the article and point here, if I see it again and secondary sources are not provided. Thanks for the responses that help clarify. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
The main place I've seen it is on the 2019 presidential crisis page that's already been linked. It's also on 2004 Venezuelan recall referendum. Another translation appears to be used on this page, with the source [14], but that article is also clearly opinionated. The source itself appears to have serious reliability problems on this topic, see for example this baffling article [15]. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

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

If you want to COPY the conversation, that's fine with me. But please don't move it (i.e. don't delete this copy). This conversation needs to stay here, so that editors who come here from THIS article can easily find it. How about you let me copy it? I want to get confirmation from at least one more editor before we agree the conversation should be continued to where you suggest. I don't care that much where it takes place. Is that okay with you, Cmonghost? --David Tornheim (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Sure, I don't really care if it stays here if we're removing that information from this article anyway. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
We can copy it or just indicate that the conversation started here and continued there. --MaoGo (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

[This conversation as of this version has been copied to here: Talk:2019_Venezuelan_presidential_crisis#"power_void". Please make further comments on this issue there, unless it is more relevant to this Guaido article. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:45, 1 June 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)
SandyGeorgia is correct. The article is biased because it should say that Guaidó is self-appointed, as nearly all of the WP:RS says that. He simply stood up at a rally and declared himself to be the president, shocking his supporters.[16][17] It was only after this bold and unexpected move that others who oppose Maduro (and Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution) decided to go along with it. Although the U.S. and a number of other countries support Guaido, three fourths of countries do not. But the first sentence only mentions those that support him not those that oppose him. The United Nations recognizes Maduro and rejects Guaido.[18][19][20]. WP:NPOV requires us to be honest, not to take a side in the dispute as the info. box does by calling him the "acting president".
Take a look at how Britannica handles it:
Venezuelan politician and leader of the National Assembly who declared himself the interim president of Venezuela on January 23, 2019, claiming that the constitution justified his action because the allegedly fraudulent 2018 election of Nicolás Maduro had left the country without a president.[21]
That's WP:NPOV. We can do better.
We have discussed the issues above in #Bias and those issues as explained here are not resolved.
I have restored the POV tag.--David Tornheim (talk) 10:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I certainly hope we can do better than Britannica, because that's a seriously incomplete and unbalanced version, which we should not aspire to.

Besides that I have been traveling for weeks and have barely kept up via iPhone hotspot, I am also concerned that the content that needs to be developed belongs at the Presidential crisis article rather than here. The Background and Justification sections of the Presidential crisis article were already present when I resumed editing, they are inadequate and incomplete, and they have had troubling issues since I first saw them. As an example, the wording "Maduro disavowed the National Assembly in 2017" has been present in that article since its earliest version, and while that wording is true and sourceable, the sources given never adequately supported the wording, which is an incomplete story. There is much work to be done to complete the background/history, and I do not understand why that work was never done; the likely explanation is that a desire to be on the main page In The News is what was driving editing here, so while a lot of trivia was developed, the big picture was entirely missed. The opportunity to get hold of the sources as these issues developed was missed, and those sections are woefully inadequate in the presidential article, so now the work of backtracking to find the sources and write what was never written needs to happen. I know what sources I need to find and have ideas about where to place this content, but time has been a constraint; I do not have the same editing time in the spring and summer that I do in the dead of winter.

I believe the content you are seeking, David Tornheim, should be developed at the Pres crisis article in a way that can be linked back to here to deal with the "declared himself" fallacy. I need to spend hours finding years-old sources and developing content that was never written; I hope we can agree before we undertake that work that a statement that Guiado is "self-declared" or "declared himself" is unbalanced, and our goal is to balance that with the information that he was appointed by the National Assembly. My view is that we should definitely address the number of highly reliable sources that do use that sloppy shortcut terminology, but then have the full story laid out somewhere that is linkable. The full story involves what happened to every democratic institution in the country and why multiple high quality sources explain that the National Aasembly is the only remaining legitimate instituion in the country; that content is glossed over in the Pres crisis article and never fully developed anywhere on Wikipedia, and it is precisely that content that explains why the National Assembly appointed an acting president. The work I envision explains what happened starting with 2015 legitimate election of National Assembly --> to TSJ, CSE, recall, ANC, 2018 elections --> "usurpation" --> appointment of Guaido by National Assembly. It is quite demotivating to have to go back and find years-old sources to write content that was strangely never developed; I hope we can agree this is the content that is needed to deal with the "self-appointed" aspect, and that all of that content cannot/should not be developed in this specific article, rather should be linked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

So we are back to it. I think an important distinction to make is that the "self-declaration" oath is specifically about the 23 January, several weeks before, there were discussions and public speeches on how it was backed up with the constitution (the Wikipedia censorship started on the 11 January!), and during the days after the 23 J, he was ratified by the National Assembly (with documents plus +50 countries and the OAS, etc). We should avoid giving so much focus to one day. If we add "self-declared" to the lead we have to be careful that people understand the distinction between the day of the oath and the strength of the political process (legitimate or not it had important international consequences). Taking self-declared out of the lead is a way to avoid having to over explain and to encourage people to read the article and get a better picture (instead, we will have to explain all of it anyway, but in the lead). --MaoGo (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Public perception[edit]

I undertook some cleanup of the public perception section, aiming to make the text reflect the content of the sources and add additional context both to Guaidó and to the individuals who are quoted in the section. I hope others will agree that the section now reads less like a "puff piece" (in David Tornheim's words) and is more encyclopedic. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: Thanks. I am seeing long-needed improvement, particularly adding the comment that he was relatively unknown. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@David Tornheim: Looks like that is already mentioned by BBC in that section, unless that was added after you made this comment.----ZiaLater (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)