Talk:Carmona Decree

POV and/or sources needed

These items are incomplete, unsourced, or POV:

• initiated a parallel coup against the Legislative, Judicial, and Moral branches
  • If you're going to call reversion to legislation before Chavez a "parallel coup" you need to provide a valid, primary source for that term.
    • Very well I could not find a reference to a parallel coup (I added it for stylistic reasons) so I will replace it with "moved away from the constitutional framework"[1]
• constitutional justification for the coup, and various new decrees.
  • Say what his justification was, and include source, otherwise article is one-sided and POV.
    • I will include the justifications that are in the same decree, you are right.
• The country was renamed Republica de Venezuela.
  • POV, because although it says "renamed", there is still no reference anywhere in the article to the fact that this restores Venezuela's original name and how Chavez changed these and many other items -- this needs to be addressed, as this article makes it appear that the Carmona decree introduced arbitrary changes, when in fact, it was restoring things to pre-Chavez condition.
    • Remember all of this is a translation from the decree, see it yourself, but I will add "from Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela" since it is short
• The National Assembly would be dissolved and new elections would be held no later than December 2002.
  • Again, still no reference to the fact or controversy that the National Assembly was installed under dubious circumstances. Present both sides of the story, to avoid bias and POV.
    • Here I disagree the National Asembly was freely elected and this has nothing to do with it really
• The following individuals would be removed from their posts: members of the Supreme Court, Attorney General, Comptroler General, Ombudsman and members of the electoral board (CNE).
  • Ditto above: POV is introduced by the failure to explain the circumstances under which these individuals were appointed.
    • Could you provide me how you view them as ilegitimate and primary sources?
      • http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/ForeignPolicy/2006/01/01/1111144/print/
      • http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/57714.pdf
      • http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/What_to_Do.pdf
      • http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2004/DiazTestimony040624.pdf
      • http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2004/VivancoTestimony040624.pdf
• All of the 48 decrees from the Ley Habilitante will be suspended.
  • Ley Habilitante is still not explained, nor are the reasons the Carmona decree was suspending it. Again, POV.
    • This might take a while I do not want to create long winded paragraphs since all of these articles are translations, the Ley Habilitante can be made into an article
• The Carmona Decree is generally viewed
  • "Generally viewed" are weasle words. Provide source.
    • Same source as above [2]
      • I do not find words in that source to support "generally viewed": plese point them out.
• The oposition could no longer argue that it was a "power vacuum" being filled by the resigning president, but full control of all democratic institutions.
  • I don't know what this sentence says or means.
    • That the coup was not just the president resigning and carmona filling the void. I know you might hold that theory but it has major holes, such as why was Diosdado not made President? Why was every single government entity from local to government at the mercy of Carmona? Why were all other branches dissolved?
• Well after the fall of the Carmona presidency there is still lingering controversy
  • Source needed. POV.
    • Ok I will use this source [3] which you deleted on Sumate (what changed?) since it is NOT venanalysis (not that it is anything wrong with it) but a reprinting.
      • It needs to be reworded from "lingering controversy" to something more along the lines of "critics say".
• Many of them justify their signature as just validating their observation, but not agreement or endorsement, however the decree clearly asked near the end.
  • Many? Who? Where? Source?
    • Fine Chavez supporters
      • Still not fixed.
• " Ladies and Gentlement, in order for this democratic movement to go forward, near the exit of this auditorium we ask that you sign the decree as proof of adhesion to this process."
  • Source?
    • Did you read the decree? it is linked below most of this article is a translation, if you want you can help
• figurehead Maria Corina Machado,
  • Figurehead?
    • I will use her official title
    • "Leader" is not her official title.

No sources for most statements in the article, which tells only one side of the story. Please make sure your sources are primary, reliable sources, rather than biased, socialist ones. If you must use biased sources, then please provide balance.

• Wikipedia has no problem with biased or socialist sources, however her own rebuttal is on the venanalysis-reprinted-but-written-by-NCR article did you read all of it?

I will not do the unkind thing of putting tags on your new article, until you have had a fair amount of time to work on these items. But, I don't think you should link to this article until it's more complete. Sandy 23:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

A month has gone by. I will tag the article as unbalanced, rather than POV, although I believe it is POV. Sandy 16:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy please you have to be more specific than that you cannot just say it is not balanced and I will decree a tag, please detail why you think it is unbalanced specifically or I will remove it.Flanker 17:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There is an entire list above, and I struck what has been done. I am reformatting it so that you may be able to read it easier: the way you originally formatted and bolded your responses makes it very hard to see what has been done and what not. I'm not sure why you've repeated text below: it's very hard to follow this page. Sandy 21:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Update Since you're linking to it from the Hugo Chávez article, it's going to need a POV tag sooner rather than later. Sandy 23:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Give me a few hours and I will see what I can do, thanks for your input.Flanker 23:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Goodness, I wouldn't put a time limit of a few hours on this amount of work ! Glad you're working on it ... Sandy 23:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem it is my first article started :)Flanker 00:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather than address each issue above, overall, there is not a single, unbiased, English language source in the article. Again, you and I can read Spanish, but we're not writing an encyclopedia in Spanish. We aren't the average reader (Spanish-English bilingual), and anything newsworthy should be available somewhere in English. There is no unbiased reference for anything in this article that will serve most Wiki readers. The article is still unsourced. I'm sure it's OK to include a Spanish source now and then, but some of your article statements, if newsworthy, must be available in English. If you can fix that, then I can address the other points (above). I can't get too excited about giving up more days to work on Wiki Venezuelan articles, considering what I now know about the "dictatorship" of Wiki. And, it's hard for me to source your statements, because they reflect a viewpoint I really don't understand. I think if the article is important to you, you've got to be the one to source your work. It's kind of amazing that some of the FARC comments stated that the problems should be easy and quick to fix, when this work is anything but easy or quick. Also, my Spanish isn't good enough to plow through long legal stuff: someone on the old main article talk page offered to help with translation, but I can't remember who it was?Sandy 00:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well we could link to a google translation, I am personally offering to translate if you disagree with my translation in the slightest you are welcome to post, they are all easy to read for a legal document actually try the ARTICLES only for starters.

As for the FARC it is still rather murky but the way we ere going was really bad in the long run, a FA is not an average page (this is not a FA BTW ;) ) it has to meet more than just tit for tat like we were doing but give prose and style that is consistent, for example the current article worked on does not have a single quotation for stylistic reasons. I believe that if we work on concesus in the talk page first and later add the piece we can do much better (ex the mudslides section). Flanker 01:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Work on consensus on the talk page???? That *is* what we *were* doing, and it was all obliterated, including (against guidelines) the talk page! And *they* had no part in even participating in talk page consensus! Talk page consensus on that article was a sham (even though I agree the article was a mess, and we weren't making progress fast enough). Anyway, I'm not objecting to the document itself being in Spanish, but that you have no English-language unbiased sources which support your interpretation of and statements about the document: that is what is still needed. The article currently has some POV statements, and wording that needs to be backed up by a primary, unbiased, English-language source ... if you can get those, than we can worry about translating the actual decree. Sandy 01:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The articles are a translation, as for the other references I will keep trying to look for the BBC one in english but it is still not against policy and neither is Venanalysis, where MCM is even quoted and interviewed (short) her stance verified achieving neutrality.Flanker 02:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at the Google translation to English: it's basically unintelligible, and doesn't resemble anything related to English ... maybe you can try one of the others (there used to be something called Babel on altavista.com)? Sandy 01:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I will try babel fish but I doubt it will do better.Flanker 02:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A month has elapsed, and the article is still POV. I will tag it as unbalanced, although I believe the stronger tag should apply. Sandy 16:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

POV issues resolved

Most of the article is just a translation, if anything else arises please point it out.Flanker 00:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time today to re-review my entire list above, but at minimum, I saw the following when glancing at the article:

"and initiated a move away from the constitutional framework" ... explain further for balance or reference the specific wording, saying whomever claims this. Otherwise, it's incomplete and POV. They believed they were restoring the constitutional framework, which Chávez has moved away from, so you're not covering both sides.

The wording can be found in the article linked, their justification is already addressed in a new subsection.

" It dissolved the Legislative, Judicial, Electoral and Moral branches of the government." This sentence stops short, making it POV. It needs to go into the detail that they were *restoring* what previously existed.

They were not restoring what previously existed save for the name of the country, all new members would be handpicked it says so in the decree.

"On April 11, 2002, anti-Chávez and pro-Chávez demonstrators clashed at the Miraflores palace." This statement, while technically accurate, introduced POV because it's not complete. Remember, the anit-Chávez demonstrations had been going on for days. And, the way it's written, one doesn't know who the 500,000 are (pro or anti). It misleads the reader regarding the massive numbers of people protesting against Chavez for many days. One of the older versions of one of the other articles has better wording, but I can't recall where I saw it -- maybe check the current verions of Hugo Chávez?

When I wrote this article it was a few minutes before the major change in the Hugo Chavez article, as a matter of fact it is copy pasted from the Jun 10 version.

"since its power reach was more comprehensive than previously justified." Much better wording than before.

"Well after the fall of the Carmona presidency there is still lingering controversy with those that signed the decree." Since the reference for this is several years old, maybe it would be better stated in the past tense, and worded as, "After Chávez was re-instated as President, lingering controversy regarding those that signed the decree remained." Ok.

"Notable signatories of this document are Súmate leader Maria Corina Machado," But, she tells it differently, according to your reference, so that needs to be included in the article for balance. Sure.

I will try to look at the article again tomorrow, and copyedit, if I have more time. I will also search the BBC for an English-language equivalent of your reference (unless you've already done that)? Sandy 14:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have not found an english BBC version no.Flanker 18:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Spanish sources

Forgive the anon post, but I was just perusing and had a quick note about the use of non-english sources. While I agree that when working in the english section of wikipedia it is advantageous to use english sources (for obvious reasons, no?) the issue is more complicated than that. There are many events that have happened around the world that simply have no reportage in english. Should we consider that as far as the english wiki is concerned that these events never happened? I of course support a continued search for english sources. Also, translations bring up the issue of original research, a rule I have never been comfortable with as all wiki articles represent original research. But that is a discussion for another time. Again, forgive the intrusion.≈≈≈≈

Actually It would not surprise me that at any moment the translation will be labelled as originial research, nevermind the past history of translating out of context quotes. One of the goals of Wikipedia is removing regional bias indeed.Flanker 19:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is held to a more rigourous standard than BLP

I cannot believe the suspension of the Supreme court was deleted because the BBC article omitted it, seriously the document is right there! anyhow I added a source specifying the Supreme Court directly.Flanker 03:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Official name in English

I don't claim to be an expert, but it seems a clearer translation would be "Constitutional Act of the Democratic Transition and National Unity Government" rather than "Act of the constitution of the Democratic Transition and National Unity Government." Or is that the way it's supposed to be interpreted? Cheezmeister 21:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I googled "Act of the Constitution" and got several hits: Act of the Const. of Tonga, Slovenia, Bulgaria, etc. JRSP 21:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As a translator (although I don't do the Spanish-English pair) I would give Act of constitution, absent a standard or official translation—had the original been Acta constituyente I might be persuaded otherwise. "Acta de constitución" is, AFAIK, a pretty standard term in corporate law, equivalent to the English "Articles of Incorporation". I wish we had an official translation, though. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I just realized there's a much bigger problem here than just the translation; the only source given in the article for the Act is a biased (pro-Chávez) one[4], so we don't know if constitucion was capitalized or not. For that matter, we don't even know if this is an accurate representation of the Act. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I should have realized this sooner, as its a biased source added by a pro-Chavez editor; the C is capitalized, and the source apparently de-capitalized it to de-emphasize any constitutionality. [5][6] The entire text should be checked, as it could be wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

FWIW: I'd render it "Act Constituting the Government of Democratic Transition and National Unity " -- even tho' it's more of a "deed establishing" or an "agreement creating", it's probably healthier not to stray too far from the Spanish/English cognates if all we're doing is giving gloss of the original name for understanding's sake. Also, I'd change the order of the 'government' and its qualifiers, because the first time I read it I falied to parse "democratic transition" as a compound modifier. All this in the absence of a (good) official translation, of course. YMMV, HTH, and YAFTD ("You Are Free To Disagree"). Bolivian Unicyclist 22:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Part II: Re the capitalization of Constitutcn: good catch. Yes, the Spanish name did look wrong. Bolivian Unicyclist 22:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

New title

I got zero google hits for "Act Constituting the Government of Democratic Transition and National Unity" and lots of hits for "Carmona Decree". I think we should revert to the original title. JRSP 00:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Mostly fed by the fact that Wikipedia gave the article a POV title rather than sticking to the legal name of the Act. Further fed by pro-Chavez and far-leftist sources labeling it as such. "The Carmona Decree" is POV, against Wikipedia's core policy. Ghits don't take preference over NPOV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If you google "Carmona decree" you will get a lot of hits from sites that are not "far-leftist sources", in fact, one of the hits I got was Súmate. JRSP 20:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, "NPOV" does not mean "lacking any information which might embarrass certain people". There was a decree. It was made by Carmona. It was the most important decree (maybe the only?) that Carmona issued, therefore it became known as the Carmona Decree. We don't have a page called the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001*. And what is this grandstanding about the Legal Name of the Act, when the Act itself was illegal as hell?

As a side note, If the behavior of anti-Chavistas on Wikipedia is representative of their behavior in Venezelua, Chavez is a saint. Eleland 20:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

* well, we do, but it's a redirect to the common name

Does Sandy or anybody else object reverting to the original title "The Carmona Decree"? JRSP 23:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be "Carmona Decree", not "The Carmona Decree", we do not include the definite article unless it's part of the title. Eleland 23:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, "Carmona Decree", then. JRSP 00:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, IMO, Carmona Decree is POV, and we should use the name of the actual Act. Ghits doesn't override POV, Ghits are partly determined by Wiki having chosen to propogate The Carmona Decree in English. (Worse, we don't have a reliable source for the entire article, and we should find one, since as of now, this article is our translation from a non-reliable source, so it should actually be put up for AfD if we have no chance of fixing that.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "Carmona Decree" is POV. Just a translation of Decreto Carmona, the usual name in Spanish for referring to the document. Decreto Carmona is used by both pro and anti Chávez sources. Even vcrisis uses "Carmona Decree". JRSP 01:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No comment on Vcrisis :-) I do hope Wiki has a higher standard than blogs and other POV pushers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What about El Universal? http://www.eluniversal.com/2005/04/14/en_pol_art_14A551361.shtml --JRSP 01:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going by who uses it, who doesn't, Ghits, etc. (since there's also an issue of English vs. Spanish hits). Using the informal name confers an air of informality and POV. I can't get around quickly on a slow connection, borrowed computer; I'll ask at WikiProject Law if they have guidelines or opinions on naming of legal documents. They've surely encountered similar sitatuions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Legal document? I don't know of any reliable source reporting this document was legal. This pompous "official name" won't change the fact that most sources report the decree went outside the constitutional framework. JRSP 03:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

POV labeling it as a one-person "decree" won't change the fact that the Act 1) was based on Chavez' resignation, announced by the military, and 2) was a Constitutionally based consequence of Chavez ordering troups to fire on peaceful marchers, which led to the military asking him to resign and installing an interim, transitional government. Reminding you, below, of the Constitutional basis for establishing an interim government after Chavez was reported to have ordered the military to fire on peaceful demonstrators, and then resigned ... SandyGeorgia (Talk)

And POV labeling it as "Democratic Transition" won't change the fact that the document pretended to abolish all Venezuelan democratic institutions. JRSP 10:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Clauses

Within the Act, the basis for the formation of a transitional government is delineated, citing the Constitution of Venezuela. The Act principally cites Article 350 of the Constitution, which says the People of Venezuela shall disown any regime, legislation or authority that violates democratic values, principles and guarantees or encroaches upon human rights. It also cites violations by the Chávez administration of Articles 43, 57, 58, 68, 136, 141, 145, 204, 211, 254, 270, 273, 279, 294, 295 and 328 of the Constitution, and it references the Democratic Charter of the Organization of American States and Chávez's resignation the day before.

Remembering the date of April 11, 2002 "with profound indignation and national mourning," it accuses the government of Chávez of:

• Attacking, repressing, and assassinating innocent peaceful demonstrators.
• Compromising democratic principles, particularly representative democracy.
• Human and property rights violations.
• Flagrant violation of separation and independence of powers.
• Corruption.
• Misuse of the armed forces.
• Promoting a climate of social violence.
• Unacceptable isolationist foreign policy, aiding Colombian guerrillas.
• Eliminating autonomy of the electoral process.
• Enacting an enabling act without consulting the electorate.
• Promoting violence via its Bolivarian Circles.
• Disrespecting institutions necessary for peaceful democratic coexistence.

...and all of this says nothing about why Pedro Carmona should attain the presidency, or what basis he would have for abolishing ALL of Venezuela's democratic institutions, not merely a few of the last President's cronies.

Nor does it say how any of this relates to calling it the "Carmona Decree". The term is not inherently demeaning -- all it means is something ordered by Carmona -- and it's by far the most common term used to refer to this law.

As with other Venezuela articles, pro-opposition editors seem unwilling to seperate their hate for Bolivarianism from matters of objective fact that don't even really relate to it. Isn't it possible to be anti-Chavez without believing that the opposition is always saintly and the government is always Satanic?Eleland 06:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverted title

Ok, considering the original move was made without consensus, I reverted to the original title. We can discuss from this point. JRSP 09:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

References

"The" Carrmona Decree

In English we do not use the definite article "the" in titles. So the article is "World War II" not "The World War II", etc. This page should be at Carmona Decree. Eleland 12:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with removing "the". However, as there is an ongoing dispute, I preferred reverting to the original title considering the initial move was made without discussion. JRSP 12:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't move to Carmona Decree. It seems we'll have to ask an admin to move it or list it at WP:Requested moves.--JRSP 22:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Following the "potentially controversial" procedure just in case someone has some objections. JRSP 01:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This article has been renamed from The Carmona Decree to Carmona Decree as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 16:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Background ->POV

The short Background-section is clear POV. The events providing a good oppurtinity to carry out a long before prepared plan are presented as motivation for the coup, the "violence"-part looks like Chavez was responsible for it, even it is clearly sorted out now, that it was neither in his power (the armed forces involved in the incidents were under control of the oppositional major of Caracas) nor did he verbaly encourage use of violence. The hole thing is spin, a shame, actually 83.180.231.8 01:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Signatories

A section naming the signatories would be helpful. Many recent (2/2014) articles state that Leopoldo Lopez signed it, but his English page explicitly says he did not (though the talk page says his [grand?]father did). 67.180.84.49 (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520060113/http://www.globovision.com/news.php?nid=36697 to http://www.globovision.com/news.php?nid=36697

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carmona Decree. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100102054750/http://www.analitica.com/bitblio/carmona_estanga/decreto1.asp to http://www.analitica.com/Bitblio/carmona_estanga/decreto1.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100102054750/http://www.analitica.com/bitblio/carmona_estanga/decreto1.asp to http://www.analitica.com/Bitblio/carmona_estanga/decreto1.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100102054750/http://www.analitica.com/bitblio/carmona_estanga/decreto1.asp to http://www.analitica.com/bitblio/carmona_estanga/decreto1.asp

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)