Open main menu

Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis


Article sizeEdit

@SandyGeorgia: Before I forget, are we doing alright with the current article size? My sidebar tool tells me that we have approached 60 kB of readable prose, which I understand is a little above what is advisable. Now that the Foreign involvement during the Venezuelan presidential crisis article was created, we may trim down the section in this article. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Noob here, how do you measure the size of the readable prose?--MaoGo (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I would say it is a little advanced, it's a script that I think I installed back when I participated in a Women in Red contest. If I'm not mistaken it should be this one, once installed it should appear in the left sidebar along with other tools, such as "What links here" and "Page information". --Jamez42 (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I have a script from Dr pda; you have to set up a monobook in your own userspace, like User:SandyGeorgia/monobook.js, and install Dr pda's prose size script.

We are pushing the WP:SIZE limits with 9,500 words of readable prose. I have been meaning to trim some of the older content, that is already well summarized to sub-articles, but I had a crazy busy week.

I can do some trimming on Monday because I have a good sense of what has already been moved to sub-articles; we need to make room for the things we've been talking about on Gauido-- better explanation of how things got to where they are. It has been discouraging to think about moving forward with all the missing text. Sources need to be found for CSE, TSJ, ANC, AN, Pres of Venezuela, vice pres ... so many building blocks that aren't done ... and we can't build ALL of that content within this article. That is why I have been stalled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Let us know if you need any help! Maybe something can be organized. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jamez42 and MaoGo: I will trim today. You mentioned trimming Foreign involvement, but I was thinking of focusing on other sections that are well summarized to sub-articles. Foreign involvement is a hot topic right now, so I will go gently in that area, where some of the older sections, viewed from the perspective of time and distance from the events, have taken on less prominence. Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Not yet done, but I need to get to my garden while the sun is shining, so will stop momentarily.

Before I started trimming, as of this version, we had:

  • File size: 84 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 103 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 18 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 60 kB (9457 words) "readable prose size"
  • References (text only): 2141 B

As of this version, we have:

  • File size: 84 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 90 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 16 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 51 kB (8132 words) "readable prose size"
  • References (text only): 1887 B

So far, nothing has been lost, as everything trimmed is in a sub-article somewhere. Back later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia and Jamez42: thanks for the prose size script, it is very cool. I feel less noob now. --MaoGo (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I didn't finish trimming; just ran out of time. I will catch up this weekend. (I miss dear Dr pda every day ... at FAC, I depended on his scripts for ... everything.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

As of this version, 7,900 words (which leaves little room to grow, but good enough for now). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

"power void"Edit

[This conversation has been copied from: Talk:Juan_Guaidó#"power_void" (permalink)]. It was decided that we should continue the conversation here. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)]

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

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

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

@David Tornheim: could you clarify which is the source/line in question? --MaoGo (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
@MaoGo: Constitution_of_Venezuela. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Are we in-line citing the constitution? I only see a footnote, also, we have the Constitution available in English. --MaoGo (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
OH! My greatest apologies, you are discussing the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis article. Right, let's see what we can do about that.--MaoGo (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
We are? I thought we were discussing the lead of this article. I just referred to the crisis article as an example of another article using the uncontroversial English translation (the same one you linked to). — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm aware of the policies around secondary sources, thanks for the reminder. We have gotten sidetracked on issues of the translation of the primary source. The initial wording I used is uncontroversial wording that's been quoted in (secondary) sources describing the matter used in other articles—as I just said above. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
@Cmonghost: I believe the secondary source should be translated--not the Constitution. If the secondary source quotes the Constitution, then I agree with you that probably an accepted translation of the Constitution would be acceptable rather than trying to translate the quote that comes directly from the Constitution.
If you can show me the secondary source(s) you are dealing with that would restore my confidence this entire discussion in not WP:OR. In the future, if you are talking about what secondary sources are saying, it would be helpful to point to them, so readers like me don't have to guess what you are talking about. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Here's an example that was provided to me by SandyGeorgia that outlines the reasoning for the Guaidó claim: [1]. The quotation is on that page. Here's another article: [2]. These are opinion pieces (from opposing perspectives) but it's difficult to find non-opinion pieces that actually quote the constitution. Anyway, I'm surprised this was controversial—that's why I didn't bother including the citation in my initial edit. It's the wording that's used elsewhere on Wikipedia when covering the challenge and it's the wording we have on Wikisource.
As a side note, I went and checked the other page I was referring to (2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis#Justification_for_the_challenge) and was shocked to find that it actually doesn't include any secondary sources (I assumed this Lawfare source was being used since SandyGeorgia referred me to it on that talk page). It only cites the constitution directly (which seems like an issue). Sorry for the confusion, I had been editing from my phone. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
That sounds like a problem including in the places where you say, "It's the wording that's used elsewhere on Wikipedia when covering the challenge and it's the wording we have on Wikisource." [Not necessarily a problem for Wikisource which may not have secondary sourcing rules]. If you can point me to those places, I would appreciate it.
Without independent reliable secondary sources (WP:RS), I believe most of this discussion is moot and the language from the Constitution should not be included because to do so would be WP:OR. I may start deleting it from the article and point here, if I see it again and secondary sources are not provided. Thanks for the responses that help clarify. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
The main place I've seen it is on the 2019 presidential crisis page that's already been linked. It's also on 2004 Venezuelan recall referendum. Another translation appears to be used on this page, with the source [3], but that article is also clearly opinionated. The source itself appears to have serious reliability problems on this topic, see for example this baffling article [4]. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks for copying the conversation. I have done some fixes to the constitution part but it requires more sources. I can update it later. But I have an unexpected appointment so I have to leave. I left the bulleted part of the article under a footnote that has to be sourced before it can be brought again into the article. --MaoGo (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Update: that's it, that's my take on the Constitution section. A large part is in a footnote that has to be primary-sourced before being brought back.--MaoGo (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

El SalvadorEdit

The new President was inaugurated today in El Salvador. There have been rumors that he supports Juan Guaido, can anyone confirm this? Ballers19 (Talk) 19:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

That information doesn't sound particularly relevant to this article. If true, and if he makes a statement about it on behalf of the government of El Salvador, it would be a better fit here: Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Rumors? You have to be kidding me. We don't put rumors in wikipedia. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It was reported when he was elected, he fully supports Guaidó, adding to El Salvador's flip-flop on the matter. Wait for a nice good source covering. Kingsif (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

It is relevant to the Responses article, however not a lot of people read that article and edit it, so I thought talking about it here would receive more participation. David Tornheim, there is no need to be rude. I literally asked a simple questions about if people knew whether or not it was confirmed, I am well aware how Wikipedia works, thank you next. Thank you Kingsif for the feedback, at least there are still kind-hearted, decent people in this world. Ballers19 (Talk) 04:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The president-elect has shown his support for Guaidó, being the opposition candidate in El Salvador. I understand that he will take oath in a few weeks, but it's up to the consensus to decide if we can/should include a statement before. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Do you have a reliable source or not? If you don't have a source, no consensus can put it in. You know that don't you? --David Tornheim (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
No need to be rude. I wasn't precisely proposing it to be included, which I why I didn't mention sources, but there are plenty of those: [5][6][7][8][9] Furthermore, Nayir has declared that he wouldn't invite Daniel Ortega or Nicolás Maduro to his inaugurarion ceremony, Guaidó congratulared Nayir for his victory ([10]) and he reportedly will have a delegate in Nayir's inauguration ([11]). --Jamez42 (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, Jamez42. We should change this. Ballers19 (Talk) 22:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Change what? El Salvador is not even mentioned in this article. If you're discussing Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, you should move your discussion to that page. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of infobox changesEdit

@MaoGo: In this edit, you delete text raising two issues:

(1) Delete: "to the surprise of his colleagues." WP:RS: [12][13] Edit summary: "surprise by his "colleagues"? More like Zambrano who knew he was going to do it but was waiting per source".

I am not following the logic. Why did you delete the sourced content?

(2) Delete: "The National Assembly, the U.S. and 50 countries support Guaidó's action, but many countries and the U.N. continue to recognize Maduro as the president, and other countries like Mexico call for mediation." Edit Summary: "countries support is not really a cause"

I am confused as to how that is not part of the crisis. I believe a number of sources, including statements from Maduro speak about the influence of other countries causing there to this "crisis". If you want me to find those sources, I can.

--David Tornheim (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

(1)You are editing the infobox, it has to be summarized and clear. "Colleagues" is vague and secondly, unless I am reading your source wrong the only "surprised" was Zambrano by saying he expected the act but was suprised anyway(?). It seems well out of context.
(2)You are editing the "causes" part. Why add the countries recognition? that came as consequence of the crisis. --MaoGo (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Also if I can add, you may have seen the whole problem that has brought to Guaidó's article. Where the only under consensus source to summarize the recognition part has been the AP article in both leads. --MaoGo (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, to raise a third point (3) what is this[14]? Ok the you are getting closer to the source, but by adding the mix-up of the National Assembly (that happened under previous circumstances to the 23 January) you are taking the subject to explain something that could be better explained outside the lead with more detail, as of now the whole Guaido's recognition as president is cumbersome. --MaoGo (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

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:[15][16][17] --Jamez42 (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Return to "2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis" page.