Open main menu

Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis

Active discussions

RfC on "himself"Edit

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus in favor of noting that Guaidó swore himself in. This position was advanced by a substantial number of participants and those who favored an alternative word did not advance any policy or guideline arguments which would suggest that this is not the consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

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 ([1][2]), 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)
Whether or not polling is a factor is a decision for the uninvolved editor: "If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it..." GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:59, 11 September 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)
  • Himself, given that so many reliable sources use this phrasing, e.g. as demonstrated by searching for the text "himself" at Talk:Juan Guaidó. -Darouet (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Himself: There's practically no semantic difference between either option, only a tonal one. The second option doesn't clarify that it was not a state-mandated act. SUM1 (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Himself Cmonghost's points are valid. GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

About the leadEdit

@Lecen and Nihlus1: This kind of editions [3] were highly controversial in Juan Guaidó, see for example Familiar geopolitical sides. Please, if you are going to reformulate the phrasing on the countries provide a source with a similar wording to the one you are adding. Also remember that we have a whole article on country recognition, no need to name all in the lead.--MaoGo (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Also the lead already says that there are 54 countries supporting Guaidó.--MaoGo (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring - "Pro Maduro" labelEdit

@Kingsif: @Notrium: I have protected the article for 24 hours so please discuss this dispute here and build consensus with other editors, rather than edit warring in the article over it.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: I already started a discussion here. Kingsif (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Good, thanks. Let's hope Notrium also engages the discussion and you can come to an agreement.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Sure. Thanks for the protection - I wasn't going to go past 3RR, hence the discussion, but also don't want other editors getting involved in the dispute, too. I'm not sure there'll be an agreement based on a few talkpage discussions featuring Notrium that I've just scanned through; if there was no consensus, could the page just be reverted to before he got involved? Kingsif (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif:, I find your comment immediately above abhorrent! Not only do you keep making ad hominems (but more subtly this time), you actually dare to ask an admin to break his neutrality to benefit you. Notrium (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Notrium: ... I asked, Amakuru could say no. If there was no resolution, an admin would have to decide where to leave the page, anyway, don't claim you wouldn't argue for it to be on your edit. I also, not in an offensive way but very genuinely, had good reason to believe that your response would be as combative as on other talkpages. It's not a personal attack to say "hey, I looked up this guy and he can be a bit angry when people challenge him". It's a reasonable statement of fact, and I'm just pleasantly surprised you were civil. Kingsif (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif: @Notrium: Just to answer this question, absent any other considerations the default per WP:BRD is to revert to the status quo if there's no consensus on what to do. In this case I believe that the adjective "pro-Maduro" was already in place before the dispute arose, so that's the default. I say absent any other considerations, though, because there's a WP:BLP issue at play here too. If it's not properly demonstrated that the majority of reliable sources describe the court as pro-Maduro, then our policy would say we should not state it as so as Maduro is a BLP and we can't say things about him without proper evidence. Anyway, my hope is that such a determination by a neutral party won't be necessary because if you avoid attacking each other, and leave aside tangential irrelevant disputes over who is more knowledgeable or experienced about Venezuelan topics, you'll be able to come up with a compromise. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru:, indeed, the BLP issue does not relate just to Maduro, but (even more?) to the members of the institutions in question. Notrium (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Return to "2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis" page.