Talk:Supreme Tribunal of Justice (Venezuela)

Translation

@SandyGeorgia: Started translation! I'm thinking about changing between the "under construction" and the "in use" templates; if I don't edit in the article for more than two hours, it's safe I won't do it in the next following eight :) --Jamez42 (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @ZiaLater:, just in case. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia:  Done! --Jamez42 (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42:, I haven't gotten to this yet :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

No worries! --Jamez42 (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

"De jure" Supreme Tribunal of Justice

@Jamez42:, Firstly, I did not at all understand your edit summary here, could you reword it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supreme_Tribunal_of_Justice_(Venezuela)&diff=921623238&oldid=921622883

The problem with using "de jure" to describe to Supreme Tribunal of Justice in exile is that de jure implies legal legitimacy. And we can not endorse one of them in Wikipedia's voice. Notrium (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Notrium: Of course, what I mean is that the discussion and the RfC has now more broadly talked about other descriptions of institutions, just like "de facto" and "de jure". The lead is only a briefing of the article's content, which it already include the procedure of the appointment of both tribunals. It isn't using Wikipedia's voice, it is an accurate description of the situation. The article states why the appointment of the de facto tribunal is void, as well as how the procedure to name a replacement was carried out and following the steps accordingly. These can be read in the "2015 Justices appointment" and the "2017 appointment and Supreme Tribunal of Justice in exile" sections. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: The article states why the appointment of the de facto tribunal is void. No, the article (slanted as it is) is actually quite clear that there are two different perspectives: the government's and the opposition's. It is not Wikipedia's job to decide which of these is correct. Both should be represented, and neither should be in Wikipedia's voice. Describing the opposition's perspective as the only accurate description of the situation, and not one of two different perspectives, is a big problem, and would be better-aligned with attempting to "right great wrongs" rather than building an encyclopedia. An accurate, NPOV wording would be something like "creating a TSJ separate from the Bolivarian government" without any POV qualifiers. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: Ibidem:

On 14 June 2016 the National Assembly nullifed the appointment carried out in 2015.

And:

The appointment of the justices was not done according with the legal procedure, but with a hurried process carried out on 23 December 2015 by the lame duck National Assembly with a ruling party majority, when the legislature ended on 15 December, after being defeated on the 2015 parliamentary election, where the opposition, represented by the Democratic Unity Roundtable opposition coalition, gained 112 of the 167 seats. (...) Both the opposition and several jurists have defined the appointment as illegal for not being performed according to the constitution and the Organic Law, including the challenges period, their lack of responses and the omission of the definite selections of the candidates.

--Jamez42 (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42:, again I urge you to read WP:OR and WP:NPOV at least (and all the other policy links from the RfC). But before that, could you explain what is "Camara" in the context of the National Assembly? Because the "nullifed the appointment" quote seems to be unsupported by the reference, as the National Assembly did not even issue the declaration on that day, but merely asked of the Camara to do so. Notrium (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Notrium: "Cámara" translates as "Chamber". Since the Venezuelan legislative branch is unicameral, it's clearly synonymous to the Assembly. If that's not enough, the article continues by explaining that it was argued that the requisites of these justices were not met. The title confirms this: "NA (National Assembly) approves to nullify the justices appointment". --Jamez42 (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: The article says On 12 July 2017, Ombudsman Tarek Saab, head of the Moral Council of Venezuela, said that the call for new magistrates would not be officially recognized by the Bolivarian government and that the magistrates already appointed by the lame duck Bolivarian National Assembly would instead continue to be recognized.[82] Despite the rejection of recognition by the Bolivarian government, the opposition-led National Assembly then voted 33 magistrates into office on 21 July 2017, creating a de jure Supreme Tribunal of Justice separate from the Bolivarian government. The opposition's appointment of 33 magistrates was not recognized by the Bolivarian government which means that it is not de jure from all perspectives, only from the opposition's perspective. What you are proposing to do is to implicitly endorse the opposition view and reject the government view, contrary to WP:IMPARTIAL, which states that: Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. If you would like to engage in this dispute I suggest you take it somewhere other than Wikipedia. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42:, On another note, I really do not understand why do you think the RfC is about "de jure", as that term has not even been mentioned on that talk page. Are you perhaps thinking of another RfC? Notrium (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: Let's start over. Prodavinci, whose source is included in the article, describes the following violations in the lame duck Assembly appointment:

1. La violación del trámite de publicación de postulados y del trámite de impugnaciones.
2. La violación del procedimiento para sustanciar las impugnaciones.
3. Nunca se informó del baremo para la preselección ni se consultó al Poder Ciudadano.
4. Nunca se realizó la selección definitiva de postulados.
5. La Asamblea inició la deliberación para designar a los magistrados en ausencia total y absoluta del previo procedimiento establecido en la Ley

1. The violation of the process of publication of the candidates and the process of challenges.
2. The violation of the procedure to substantiate the challenges.
3. The scale for the preselection was never reported nor was the Citizen Branch consulted.
4. The final selection of candidates was never carried out.
5. The National Assembly started established the deliberation to appoint the justices in total and absolute absence of the previous procedure established in the law.

The analysis further explains why they are violations:

1. De acuerdo con el artículo 71 de la Ley Orgánica del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, publicado el anuncio con los postulados, debía iniciarse un lapso para presentar impugnaciones a los postulados. (...) la designación de los magistrados comenzó el día veintidós de diciembre, cuando no había vencido, siquiera, el lapso de quince días de impugnación, lo que implica una grave violación a la Ley.
2. El Comité de Postulaciones Judiciales debía pronunciarse sobre si admitía o no las impugnaciones, para lo cual contaba con un lapso de hasta ocho días continuos. (...) Nada de ello sucedió. No solo el debate en la Asamblea para designar a los Magistrados comenzó el veintidós, cuando el lapso de impugnaciones no había vencido. Es que además el Comité no pudo pronunciarse formalmente sobre las impugnaciones, las cuales fueron sencillamente ignoradas.
3. De acuerdo con el procedimiento establecido en la Ley –artículo 73- luego de sustanciado el procedimiento de las impugnaciones de postulados el Comité debía efectuar tres tareas: (...) Todos estos trámites fueron obviados. (...) De hecho, también se violó el artículo 31 del Reglamento, pues en ningún momento el Comité informó de cuáles eran los postulados preseleccionados ordenados “por cada una de las Salas que conforman el Tribunal Supremo de Justicia”.
4. Dispone el artículo 74 de la Ley que, una vez recibida la primera lista de preseleccionados, el Comité de Evaluación de Postulaciones del Poder Ciudadano contaba con diez días continuos para hacer segunda preselección que será presentada a la Asamblea Nacional. (...) Ese trámite fue igualmente obviado.
5. En esta designación, igualmente, violó no solo la Ley Orgánica del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia sino además, el Reglamento Interior y de Debates. Veamos: De acuerdo con el artículo 38 de la Ley, una vez culminado el procedimiento para hacer la segunda preselección –procedimiento que fue obviado en este caso- la Asamblea debía convocar a una sesión plenaria, con al menos “tres días hábiles de anticipación”, para hacer la selección definitiva con el voto favorable de las dos terceras (2/3) partes de sus miembros. (...) Por lo tanto, las cuatro sesiones extraordinarias realizadas los días 22 y 23 de diciembre violaron el Reglamento Interior y de Debate de la Asamblea Nacional.

1. According to Article 71 of the Organic Law of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, published the announcement with the postulates, a period should begin to present challenges to the postulates. (...) the appointment of the justices began on the twenty-second of December, when it had not even expired, the period of fifteen days of challenge, which implies a serious violation of the Law.
2. The Judicial Nominations Committee should have announced if it admitted or not the challenges, for which it had a period of up to eight continuous days. (...) None of it happened. Not only the debate in the Assembly to appoint the justices started on the twenty-second, when the challenges period had not expired. It is also that the Committee could not formally rule on the challenges, which were simply ignored.
3. According to the process established in the Law –Article 73- after substantiating the candidate challenges procedure the Committee had to perform three tasks: (...) All these processes were ignored. (...) In fact, Article 31 of the Regulations was also violated, because at no time did the Committee report which were the candidates shortlisted organized "by each of the Chambers that make up the Supreme Tribunal of Justice."
4. Article 74 of the Law provides that, once the first list of shortlisted candidates was received, the Nomination Evaluation Committee of the Citizen Branch had ten continuous days to make a second shortlist that would be presented to the National Assembly. (...) That process was also ignored.
5. This appointment, likewise, not only violated the Organic Law of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice but also the (the National Assembly) Internal and Debate Rules. Let us see: According to Article 38 of the Law, once the process for making the second preselection has been completed - the process that was ignored in this case - the Assembly should convene a plenary session, with at least “three business days in advance”, to make the final selection with the favorable vote of two thirds (2/3) of its members. (...) Therefore, the four extraordinary sessions held on December 22 and 23 violated the National Assembly Internal and Debate Rules.

The 2015 appointment violated the Constitution, Organic Law of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice and the National Assembly Internal and Debate Rules. The article is simply describing this. Has the government argued that these actions were not violations? Has the government provided justifications for these actions? No, it has not. If you know about any statement or reference referring to this, please provide them per WP:VER. There's no need to be aggressive and suggesting I should not be in Wikipedia. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: First, thanks for pointing out that this blog post is cited uncritically in our article. This is a big problem; it should be attributed. Otherwise I don't really see any relevance to the actual discussion, above, which is about whether we should not refer to the TSJ in exile as de jure. My view is that we should not. There are two perspectives here: the government does not view the TSJ in exile as de jure. We know this because they did not recognize the appointment of the TSJ in exile, as outlined in the article already. The opposition views the TSJ in exile as de jure, again as outlined in the article already. Because the two sides do not agree, we should not be referring to either as de jure based on Wikipedia policy (specifically WP:IMPARTIAL, which states that Wikipedia summarizes disputes, not engages in them). My proposal to resolve this is very simple. The text creating a de jure Supreme Tribunal of Justice separate from the Bolivarian government should be changed to creating another Supreme Tribunal of Justice, separate from the Bolivarian government (including on other related articles, which currently use similar wording). If you disagree with this proposal, can you please explain why you think we should ignore WP:IMPARTIAL in this instance and take the side of the opposition as fact? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC about applying the "pro-Maduro" label to Venezuela's institutions (eg., the Supreme Tribunal of Justice)

Please take a look at the following RfC, wherein we discuss whether applying the label "pro-Maduro" to certain Venezela's institutions/branches of government violates WP:OR (possibly including WP:SYNTH policies, and whether it is neutral. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Responses_to_the_2019_Venezuelan_presidential_crisis#RfC:_Should_Venezuelan_crisis-related_articles_use_terms_like_'pro-Maduro',_and,_if_not,_what_alternatives_can_be_used? Notrium (talk) 09:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

2002 coup d'etat

This section was unreadable to me, because I don't speak Spanish. I have added parenthesized auto-translations, but I can't speak to their correctness.

The meat of this section is quotations in Spanish; I would argue that these are useless in English Wikipedia, and should be replaced either with quotations from a reliable (English language) source, or a paraphrasing in English of the original Spanish sources. I'm not going to delete the Spanish quotations, because I don't know how good the autotranslations are. In particular, I don't think my auto-translator knows what "Pusieron la plasta" means (I certainly don't).

I don't think this revision with translations is any better; I still can't work out what the story is. I think the entire section should be replaced with a properly-sourced English narrative account, instead of comprising maily quotes from political statements and legal documents. I think the section as it stands is a cop-out - it's important, which is why it's there, but despite its density it conveys little information.

MrDemeanour (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)