Open main menu

Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis

  (Redirected from Talk:2019 Venezuelan Presidential crisis)


Another attack to the AssemblyEdit

I'm starting to see this more and more in the news, so I'll include some refs here in case there can be a small mention about the event:[1][2][3] --Jamez42 (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Video and photos of kidnapping attemptEdit

This source, cited in the article, says that there was a video and some photos released by Guaidó's press team. But they aren't linked in the source; were these released publicly or only to Reuters and other media? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Infobae has photos and video [4]MaoGo (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll add this source to the article. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


@Cmonghost:@MaoGo: Just seeing this edit, sorry if it was deleted before by accident. Like with other details, I have to opposed the qualifier "himself". Along with other wordings, such as "self-proclaimed", "in a public square", "in a rally", it has been used by critics and outlets that oppose Guaidó to take away any legitimacy that he may have. It is a over-simplification of an already convoluted situation, such as the precedents of the last presidential elections, previous decisions by the National Assembly and the Tribunal in exile, the constitutional crisis, the declaration of void of power by Maduro even before the presidential elections, etc. There isn't a confusion that Guaidó was swore in by someone else, and using the word in these circumstances is WP:UNDUE. It is a loaded word, and there's consensus to avoid other biased terms, such as "acting president"; as such it should be avoided. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: "Himself" is an accurate descriptor, and one used in reliable sources—including the one that is already in the article directly after the text in question. I am not at all convinced that "himself" is POV or loaded in any way. Can you explain why you think it is?
I also think you must be reading a different WP:UNDUE page than I am. Here is a direct quote from that page:
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.
It is not undue in the least to present the majority perspective, the perspective that is held and expressed by verifiable, reliable sources. On the contrary, it is undue to suppress this prominent perspective by using language that does not reflect the sources. I understand that your personal opinion is that using the word "himself" is not NPOV (though you've yet to clearly explain why), but as long as it is used in reliable sources, I don't see how your personal opinion matters. What matters is what's in the sources. Here's another quotation from WP:UNDUE that I think is relevant here:
Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
I also want to note that a concession contrary to NPOV has already been made on Venezuelan crisis topics to not use the descriptor "self-declared", and related phrases such as "declared himself", which are also frequently used in reliable sources. It is not NPOV, nor is it encyclopedic, to cherrypick or censor the content of reliable sources to suit editors' personal opinions, and I'm disappointed that it is happening so frequently here. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 06:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, you claim that "himself" has been used by critics and outlets that oppose Guaidó to take away any legitimacy that he may have. On the contrary, it is used in high-quality sources such as the New York Times ("declared himself" and "swore himself in"), the Guardian ("swore himself in"), Reuters ("self-declared interim president", "self-proclaimed interim president", "swore himself in"), and even clearly US/opposition-aligned sources such as Voice of America ("swore himself in") ("declared himself interim president"), which is directly funded by the US government (our own article describes it as the United States federal government's official institution for non-military, external broadcasting). Do you contend that these are all critics and outlets that oppose Guaidó? Please be serious. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 06:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@Cmonghost:Refrain from making personal arguments. Accusing me of "cherrypicking", "censoring", promoting my "personal views" or asking me to "be serious" can constitute personal attacks, and I feel the discussions had been going smoothly for them to go downhill. Can we argue that in these six months since the start of the presidential crisis, regardless of the specific news in question, verifiable and reliable sources have consistently referred to Guaidó's proclamation has having "declared himself president"? I doubt that, and using four specific articles to show that would be real cherrypicking.
The nature of the phrasing in even more problematic to demonstrate that the use of the terms "coup", "uprising" or both. However, what we can do is to show that other wordings have been used in the past: BBC ("We cannot say that Juan Guaidó decided himself to assume the presidency, that would be a self-proclamation. We cannot say that he named himself president, because that would be a coup d'état. Who proclaims Guaidó as constitutional president, who gives him the legitimacy to act is Article 233 of the constitution."), Infobae ("decidió jurar formalmente como presidente encargado de Venezuela"), Efecto Cocuyo ("23 January 2019, the day that Venezuelans swore in a president"), El Pitazo ("después de que Juan Guaidó se proclamara"), El Estímulo ("Guaidó se juramenta"), to mention some. On the other hand, it can be shown that this term is also used by biased and unreliables sources, including some listed as such in the perinneal sources: Telesur Global Research ("sworn himself"), (("sworn himself"), ("after proclaiming himself"), Mintpress News ("declared himself"), Orinoco Tribune ("proclaimed himself president in charge of Venezuela in a public square").
Arguments are not personal opinions. As it can be seen above, the use of "himself" takes away meaning from the legitimacy and its claims. If it didn't, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Precisely because of the Article 233 claims and previous decisions by the National Assembly, it is argued that Guaidó did not proclaim "himself", but that the constitution, the National Assembly, or the Venezuelan people did, however it would like to be called. WP:NPOV requires that either we use both phrasings with atributions ("Supporters say "took oath acoording to the constitution", "with support of the National Assembly", "was swore in by the Venezuelans in a rally", while critics say "self-proclaimed", "declared himself", "US-backed") or simply use a middle ground term, simply "took oath", "declared", "swore", etc. If I didn't include sources as examples before is because looking for them is time consuming, which is the same reason why I have replied so late, and quoting another discussion, continuing would be no better than a "pissing contest". These discussions about semantic can go back and forth endlessly, so my suggestion would be to use, in these cases, the simplest and most non-controversial wordings. Best regards. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jamez42: Most of your sources don't really support the argument you're making:
  • The quotation that you present from BBC is from a university professor they interviewed; it's not in their editorial voice. There are other quotations in the article, including from another university professor who disagrees. In BBC's actual voice, they use se proclamar multiple times.
  • The Infobae article does not include "himself" but the use of "decided" emphasizes his agency in a similar way.
  • El Pitazo says "proclaimed himself" so I'm not sure why you cited it.
  • El Estímulo says "swore himself", see above.
The only source that you cited that is similar at all to what you want to include in the article is the one from Efecto Cocuyo, and that story has a clear pro-opposition stance. This is why WP:CHERRYPICK comes to mind.
Here are a few more reliable, verifiable (note that Spanish sources should be considered less verifiable than English sources on the English Wikipedia) sources that support the inclusion of "himself". It didn't take me very long to find them, probably because of how ubiquitous this wording is. There are many more articles that I could have included but didn't. I'm sure you can find them yourself quite easily.
As for your point that Telesur and others agree with the reliable sources I've just cited in using "declared himself", I don't think that matters. I'm sure Telesur and the New York Times would also agree that the sky is blue and the grass is green. But I never cited Telesur, Mintpress News or any of the other outlets you're complaining about here. Telesur and NYT using similar wording does not invalidate NYT.
As it can be seen above, the use of "himself" takes away meaning from the legitimacy and its claims. I disagree, and more importantly, it seems the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, Reuters, and many reliable sources do too.
These discussions about semantic can go back and forth endlessly. I agree that it's pointless to go back and forth about semantics. However, the only one talking about semantics here is you. I am talking about what is said by reliable sources.
my suggestion would be to use, in these cases, the simplest and most non-controversial wordings. I agree. That's why I think we should say "declared himself" and/or "swore himself in", which are substantially simpler than the other contortions that have been used thus far ("declared that he was president", for example, is much longer for no apparent gain). Per WP:NPOV, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. The prevalence of "declared himself" and "swore himself in" in reliable sources requires us to represent it in this article. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Addendum: I want to respond here to the claim in this edit summary that "No new points have been brought to the discussion". That is not true. In your earlier comment, you said the following:
Can we argue that in these six months since the start of the presidential crisis, regardless of the specific news in question, verifiable and reliable sources have consistently referred to Guaidó's proclamation has having "declared himself president"? I doubt that, and using four specific articles to show that would be real cherrypicking.
I brought forward many more sources showing exactly that: verifiable and reliable sources have consistently said that he "declared himself president" and "swore himself in". I don't see how the claim that "no new points" have been made is defensible, which is why I would prefer to discuss on talk than with terse edit summaries. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
further addendum I went ahead and fixed the wording, as it contained unnecessary, unnatural and confusing ellipsis. Note that while I did not re-insert "himself", I still think we should phrase it as "declared himself president" and/or "swore himself in" per my arguments and sources above, and look forward to further discussion of the same. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I apologize again, I've finally found time again to reply. Addressing first things first, the Spanish for "himself" would be "(verb) a sí mismo", meaning that saying "se proclamara, se juramenta, jurar formalmente" are closer to a infinitive form of "proclaims, takes oath, swears formally", without the connotation that he did it alone, or on his own. I also forgot to mention that since the crisis has been ongoing for six months I listed news only about the day of the proclamation. Given that we're talking about wordings and phrasings, Spanish sources shouldn't be considered "less verifiable" than English ones, specially when they are reliable, but here are other English sources that refrain from using "himself":
I've previously argued two points that still stand: that sources have also refrained from using "himself" and that the term has been used by biased/pro-Maduro sources to minimize Guaidó's legitimacy. I have noticed that other terms besides the ones in the article have been used by sources and could be considered for the articles, such as "Mr. Guaidó has asserted that he is the interim president under Venezuela’s Constitution" or "contested the re-election of President Maduro" [5][6]. Personally I think even the phrase "had himself sworn in as interim president" sounds more acceptable that the previous ones. My edits clarified that there was a declaration and a oath based on clarifications that you also made, but it seems that the lengthy wording has been solved fortunately. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jamez42: I consulted a colleague of mine who speaks Spanish natively, who said that "después de que Juan Guaidó se proclamara 'presidente encargado' de Venezuela" would translate into English as "after Juan Guaidó (had) proclaimed himself 'president in charge' of Venezuela." (emphasis added) You can also have a look at the entry for se on Wiktionary, or any Spanish-English dictionary, to see that it is defined as Third person (also used for usted and ustedes) reflexive direct or indirect object oneself, himself, herself, itself, yourself; each other; one another (emphasis added). I have to disagree with your suggestion that given that we're talking about wordings and phrasings, Spanish sources shouldn't be considered "less verifiable" than English ones: if we are discussing how to describe the events in English, we need to use English sources, not Spanish ones, since the way we translate Spanish sources would depend on our own judgments.
I will address each of your listed sources below. I would also note that they are all from the New York Times, whereas I provided multiple articles from several different outlets, indicating a clear, widespread pattern of usage.
  • The first source is only peripherally about Guaidó, and the text you cite links directly to this article which says "stood in the streets of the capital and declared himself the legitimate president", so I don't think this is a great example to use to make the case that NYT refrains from using "himself".
  • The second source is again only peripherally about Guaidó, and the linked article about him, here, uses "swore himself in" and "declared himself president". Same point as above.
  • Third: direct quote (as you acknowledge) from US Vice President Mike Pence. Not exactly an unbiased source, and certainly not in the voice of the NYT.
  • Fourth: Opinion piece, not news article. See WP:NEWSORG: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.
  • Fifth: same as fourth—opinion piece.
  • Sixth: Another opinion piece, explicitly by a member of the opposition.
In other words, only two of the sources you cite are news articles that refrain from using "himself", and both are only peripherally related to the swearing-in and declaration of presidency—and both link to other articles from the same outlet that do use "himself". I do not think this is convincing evidence that "himself" is not widely used; it is only evidence that the New York Times does not always use the exact same wording to describe events across multiple articles. In fact, it suggests that most sources that avoid "himself" are opinionated and opposition-aligned, such as Mike Pence and the author of the sixth piece, who is a self-described member of the opposition. At any rate, I think we should prioritize the use of sources that deal directly with the issue, rather than those that just mention it in passing. Those sources overwhelmingly use "himself", as I've repeatedly shown.
To your other two points:
  • sources have also refrained from using "himself". Yes, but many more have used "himself". I don't think we should use marginal, sparsely-attested wordings like "asserted that" or "had himself sworn in", as that would be undue. I think we should use the dominant wording. As for "contested the re-election", that is true of anyone who disputes the results of the election—the National Assembly has contested the results, the US has contested the results, and so on. It doesn't have the same meaning as "swore himself in" and/or "declared himself president" and so is not a suitable replacement.
  • the term has been used by biased/pro-Maduro sources to minimize Guaidó's legitimacy. The first part is true: the term has been used by biased/pro-Maduro sources. It has also been used by reputable sources such as the New York Times, Washington Post, etc., that I'm sure you would agree are definitively not pro-Maduro, so I don't see why it matters—as I've already said. The latter part is dubious—how does it minimize Guaidó's legitimacy to accurately indicate that he swore himself in or declared himself president? I still haven't seen a clear explanation of why you feel that "himself" minimizes his legitimacy. Do you have a source for this or something?
In all, I feel that the justification for removing "himself" is quite weak. Decisions on Wikipedia have to be based on reliable sources and not the opinions of editors. If you do not have reliable sources to back up your claims, I think "himself" should be speedily re-added. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Remember that I'm a native Spanish speaker too. The issue in English is that unlike in Spanish, you can't write "Guaidó 'declared', 'proclaimed', 'swore'" without adding "himself". This means that while the grammatically correct translation in English would include "himself", the original meaning in Spanish does not, and there are sources that are translated as an infinitive both in English as in Spanish. WP:NPOV establishes that when found with two points of view, both must be included, which would bring the need of attribution when using "himself" and when not.
I'll quote the minimization of legitimacy in the biased sources quoted above where "himself" is used:
  • Global Research: In an unconstitutional event the president of the National Assembly in judiciary contempt, Juan Guaido, sworn himself in on Wednesday morning. After which U.S. President Donald Trump recognized the illegal self-proclaimed president. The same was done by the Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS), Luis Almagro, who has instigated attacks against Venezuela and his Government.
  • Telesur: Venezuela’s public prosecutor's office is advancing the investigation on the lawmaker, Juan Guaido, of the National Assembly, the legistlative body in contempt under the constitution, over his attempt to usurp governmental powers after proclaiming himself interim president of Venezuela.
  • Orinoco Tribune: The reality is that almost three months after Guaidó proclaimed himself president in charge of Venezuela in a public square in Caracas and promised the resignation or departure of Nicolás Maduro from power and the convocation of free elections, nothing has changed in the country.
  • Mintpress News: Canada has been a major player in orchestrating repeated coup attempts in Venezuela since Juan Guaido declared himself president in January.
Given that this it seems we can agree to disagree, that this has been discussed ad nauseam and that the discussion is increasingly difficult to keep track of, my advice would be to ask the commentary of third parties in any case. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jamez42: Remember that I'm a native Spanish speaker too. I'm aware of that; my point is that there seem to be multiple potential translations, so we should go with English sources where we don't have to deal with that issue. Having editors translate from Spanish themselves is likely to introduce more bias than simply mirroring reliable English sources.
As for your citations from Telesur et al, I disagree that "himself" is what's minimizing Guaidó's legitimacy there. Rather, the surrounding text, which contains things like "in an unconstitutional event", "his attempt to usurp governmental powers", "repeated coup attempts", etc., is what minimizes his legitimacy. "Himself" is just the word used in English reflexives, just like se in Spanish. If it truly minimized his legitimacy, it wouldn't be used by NYT, and it certainly wouldn't be used by Voice of America!
I'll look into starting an RfC to get some outside feedback, but I am sincerely mystified that this is such a sticking point for you; speaking as a native English speaker I do not detect any bias in the use of "himself". — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jamez42: Are you OK with the simple RfC question Should the lead use the word "himself"? If so I will post it tonight (or you could do it). After posting I will then include the two versions—the current one and the one that included "himself". — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Cmonghost: Good thinking. I will ping editors @MaoGo, Ballers19, and David Tornheim: so they may share their thoughts too. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Sorry, I have not responded to this, I still have not made my mind about it. Isn't there a Spanish language or translation project you can ask to be sure that there is a mismatch with the Spanish sources? An RFC is not a bad idea, we have called RFC for lesser problems. --MaoGo (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC on "himself"Edit

Should the lead use the word "himself" in the context of Juan Guaidó's swearing-in and declaration of acting presidency?

Here are two example wordings for each choice, though they need not be the verbatim final text:

  • himself: Guaidó declared himself acting president and swore himself in.
  • no himself: Guaidó declared that he was acting president and took the presidential oath.

Please respond with either himself or no himself with an explanation for your stance. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Himself Honestly, I think this issue is pretty cut and dried. The wording with "himself" is ubiquitous in highly-regarded reliable sources such as the New York Times (I listed many of these here, though the list is not even close to exhaustive), whereas the wording without "himself" appears marginal. While a few sources have been found that don't use "himself", most of these were from clearly opinionated sources, such as US Vice President Mike Pence, one of Guaidó's most outspoken supporters. I noted here that even two news articles unearthed from the NYT that do not use "himself" link to other articles for further info from the same outlet that do use it.
The argument has been made that opinionated pro-Maduro sources such as the deprecated source Telesur use "himself", purportedly to undermine Guaidó's legitimacy as acting president, but I find this line of argument dubious. While it's true that Telesur uses "himself", I don't think that's particularly meaningful, given that is also used by the New York Times, Washington Post, Reuters, and other highly-regarded sources—and it's also used even in clearly pro-opposition, anti-Maduro sources like Voice of America ([7][8]), which is directly funded by the US government and is the United States federal government's official institution for non-military, external broadcasting per our article on the subject.
The fact that "himself" is used in Telesur, Voice of America and everything in between is strong evidence that it is a widely-accepted and uncontroversial view. Sources across the ideological spectrum—and more importantly, highly-regarded perennial sources such as the New York Times and Reuters—refer to Guaidó as having "declared himself president" and "sworn himself in". Per WP:WEIGHT, neutrality requires that we represent this widely-held view in our article. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No himself: Two main points: the lack of use of "himself" has been used before by reliable sources and the term "himself" has been used by biased and pro-Maduro sources by undermine Guaidó's legitimacy. The difference between the use in reliable and unreliable source is the phrasing, which doesn't change the fact that the word is prejudicial. Per WP:NPOV, and considering the existance of two points of views, attribution or the use of both wordings is advisable.
Guaidó's claim is also based in previous actions by the National Assembly and, as known, a constitutional interpretation, so the burden of the declaration does not rest solely in him, and defining "himself" is misleading in this sense. --Jamez42 (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to say in advance that the RfC was started to look for insight regarding the issue, and as such shouldn't be seen as a poll --Jamez42 (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what you mean, but my intention was for it to be a normal RfC per WP:RfC, to be used to help resolve the disagreement and reach consensus. I don't think any RfCs should be seen as polls, since what counts most is the strength of the arguments rather than the number of !votes. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Not assuming anything in particular, it's just a note that I think important to point out before other arguments are brought. Those are precisely my points. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Only the first "himself" - I agree with cmonghost that "swore himself in" while perhaps true, is not necessary. It is likely not WP:NPOV and possibly WP:FRINGE as it attempts to suggest that some requirement of the solmisation/ceremony was not adhered too (see Obama's first swearing in). I think the other "himself" is appropriate however (ie "Guaidó declared himself acting president"). This is appropriate because his legitimacy (to claim the presidency) is questioned, and ultimately his authority to declare himself president comes from himself. Why is he president now? Because he says he is and some others agree. That is it. So I think we can say "He declared himself acting president and took the presidential oath."--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not certain that there's a meaningful difference between the versions, especially when the sentence is read in the context of the rest of the lead (and article). While the use of "himself" in isolation could carry a connotation of illegitimacy, IMO this is a pretty mild connotation, which in the context of a neutral presentation of claims should have little effect on the article's neutrality. If I have to choose, I guess I'd lean toward including "himself" given that everyone from Telesur to VoA (and actual reliable sources between them) uses this phrasing. signed, Rosguill talk 21:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No himself: agreed with Jamez42.--ColumbiaXY (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment I think the difference of implications of either version are in the eye of the beholder. Having said that, it seems that we should strive for accuracy. Can someone please provide the sequence of events. Did Guaido declare he was president before or after swearing the oath and was it administered by him or by someone else? If it was, we should name that person. Also, Acting President of Venezuela is a formal title which we should consider capitalizing. TFD (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

On Arévalo's cause of deathEdit

@Jamez42: I hope this is clear from my edit summary, but I am not opposed to removing the text "according to his lawyer" if an English source of equal or greater quality to Reuters supports this, but I don't think we should replace the Reuters source with a Spanish source, based on WP:NONENG; that would make the text less verifiable to an English-speaking reader. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

To your most recent edit summary: the text you quote from WP:NONENG comes directly before, and is modified by, However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. Your removal of the high-quality Reuters source contravenes this policy. Please reinstate it. Further, please do not accuse me of edit warring; as I said above, the issue is not with the text being added but that a lower-quality, less-verifiable source is being used. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Additionally to the language problem, I would also prefer to keep the Reuters source for reliability and notability. We work with what we got. I will look for more English sources later.--MaoGo (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I have replaced the Infobae with a PanAm Post and a The Guardian source. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed the PanAm Post article since it appears to be an opinion column (listed under Opinion section on the website, says Opinion at the top) but the Guardian source looks good. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Since this seems to be a controversial topic, I'll also note here that I changed the wording to a direct quote from the Guardian's translation of the autopsy, because it seemed to indicate a different ultimate cause of death. I don't think it needs to be a quotation necessarily, and their translation is a little clunky, but I couldn't think of a way to paraphrase without making it more complex. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I still do not know why are we going into such details, I will recommend to keep the original wording supported by Reuters; it is simple enough. Is is about "according to the lawyer"? can we just cite the Guardian in support and erase that line?--MaoGo (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The Reuters source said that he died of "polytrauma with a blunt object" (with the quotes) which isn't fully supported by the Guardian; the Guardian translates the autopsy directly and cites cerebral edema as the ultimate cause of death. I would be fine with "Arévalo's cause of death was cerebral edema" or similar if we don't want to go into too much detail. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The most important detail is that the ultimate cause of death was polytrauma, while the cerebral edema and the rhabdomyolysis are consequences of itm according to the autopsy. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The source says that the cause of death was severe cerebral edema, which was caused by a chain of other factors. The source doesn't put any more emphasis on polytrauma than the other factors. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
"Severe cerebral edema [brain swelling] caused by acute respiratory failure caused by a pulmonary embolism caused by rhabdomyolysis [a potentially life-threatening breakdown of muscle fibers] by multiple trauma". It has an established order, polytrauma is the first factor and reliable sources have reported it as such. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The reliable source we are citing here lists all the factors, which is good because it specifies what the chain of events leading to his death was. Simply stating that he died due to polytrauma would be too vague (it literally just means multiple traumatic injuries) and leaving out the intermediate developments would make it unclear why polytrauma led to his death, as there are many ways for multiple traumatic injuries to kill a person. The wording as it currently stands makes that clear; if we are cutting it down as MaoGo suggested I do not think it's specific enough to list his cause of death simply as "polytrauma"; at least the brain swelling (which was the ultimate cause of death per the report as translated by the Guardian) should be included if not the entire chain. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Use of opinion article as source for factsEdit

@Jamez42: This is regarding this reversion. Can you please indicate what in WP:SECONDARY allows for the use of opinion sources for facts other than the author's point of view? Your reversion appears to be contrary to WP:NEWSORG, which states that Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Mundaray is not the author of the piece, so it is not a reliable source for what he said. Nothing in WP:SECONDARY appears to contradict that part of WP:NEWSORG. In general, could you please provide more informative edit summaries when making disputed changes, or use the talk page, per WP:REVTALK? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: I didn't have the time to respond satisfactorily until now, answered in the Rafael Acosta Arévalo talk page and copying here for reference: --Jamez42 (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I only moved the content in the presidential crisis article here when it was trimmed. WP:SECONDARY specifically considers nalysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas as secondary sources. The content is not the author's point of view, but rather a translation of the original text in Spanish, which was added and removed in the article, based on the translation of the Spanish version, even before I started editing this article. I'm not sure if WP:SECONDARY is the most accurate policy to quote, but what I also meant is that the current PanAm Post is used as a support source for the Spanish sources (not sure if WP:NOENG applies in this case either), and the current content doesn't depend on it to be verified. In any case, I have added two more Spanish sources given that English sources seem to haven't picked up Mundaray's statement yet. Either that or my search engine isn't helping me. What I keep asking myself and I would like to know is why, after I added Mundaray's statement using only El Pitazo and with a similar translation, you decide to restore it without including many other of the findings, such as the Fracture of the nasal septum, excoriations (...), hematomas (...), whip-like injuries (...) the foot fracture and the abrasions? --Jamez42 (talk)


The last part of the event sections is getting kind of "dreary", we may need more pictures for May-June-July events. Any ideas? --MaoGo (talk) 11:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

On the meantime, we could add pictures of Edgar Zambrano, Gilber Caro, Bachelet and Raúl Baduel. However, it would be excellent to have pictures of Bachelet's visit, I think there are some when she visits the Metropolitan University, as well as Rafael Arévalo. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I added a picture of Zambrano but at least one more for June-July would be nice.--MaoGo (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to "2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis" page.