Open main menu

Contents

NPOV DiscussionEdit

@Jamez42: | We clearly have a disagreement on what constitutes a neutral point of view. All of my edits had citations attached and most of them also had relevant quotes supporting the wording of the article. To avoid edit wars, let's open a discussion here about what you feel about my changes constitutes NPOV violations, keeping in mind my edits were intended to create a NPOV by providing contrasting and third-party sources and views to the article which don't exist in your version, and mine uses language specifically found within the sources. --Redratatoskr (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Redratatoskr: Hi. I have to admit that my decision to revert might have been rushed and was also motivated by the now closed sockpuppet investigation, not to mention the size of the edits. I agree with and appreciate most of the changes made, only with few exceptions. I should first express that I still worry about the use of weasel wording, which would be the one that is unreferenced.
  • Besides that Twitter is not the most appropriate reference, Bertucci's quote likely constitutes cherrypicking. He "accepted" the presidential elections results, but the rest of his quote explains that he heavily criticized the process: "I accept the results of the re-elected government, but under what concept did it win? I denounce the strategy implemented under bribery and manipulation with red points and the mockery with the hunger of thousands of Venezuelans in the polling stations." In other words, Bertucci basically accepted that Maduro was reelected in an unfair election. I should also mention that Henri Falcón, Maduro's main opponent, disregarded the results even before they were announced because of the abundance of irregularites. This was widely explained last year when the article was created and the election took place.
  • I also had to delete the Human Development Index reference because it is undue and outdated. In 2018, Venezuela fell 16 positions below is said Index.[1] In the future I would like to ask for caution when making these references. Susana Raffalli, a Venezuelan nutritionist and expert in the area, has also explained many times that government officials usually report outdated data in international organizations, which is the case with UNICEF, for example.[2] In other cases, the government has stopped mentioned organizations and figures that previously were the pride for the officials, which is the case of the FAO. I will quote Rafalli on what I think sums up the situation for 2018 very nicely: "The FAO stressed that the increase in hunger in Venezuela is a determining factor in the recession of the entire region. The PAHO urged to take urgent measures to face the increase of diphtheria, malaria and measles cases, and the UNDP says that we fell 16 steps in human development. End of the week."[3] --Jamez42 (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jamez42: I can definitely understand not wanting the edits to go through without the sockpuppet investigation having been done first, so no hard feelings about that, and I'm glad we're able to talk this out together in a way that's mutually satisfactory and cordial. In terms of your disagreements with the weasel wording, I can understand why you feel that, for example, changing "condemnation" to "controversy" might feel unfair. One thing to keep in mind is in the section about Weasel Words it says, "views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source." So I think in this context, my edits as mentioned are justified because (at the very least) third-party sources referenced in the article mention both anti- and pro- government arguments as well as both side's supporters around the globe, with EU and US-aligned nations backing the opposition and Russia, China and leftist nations generally backing the government. That's why I believe controversy is more accurate than condemnation, since condemnation heavily implies there are no nations around the world which support the government's claims when there are, if that makes sense.
In terms of Bertucci's quote, I don't exactly read it the same way you are, I think a lot of replies show that he does in fact recognize the results as legitimate even if he denounces the bribery and underhanded tactics which is why many replies on the Tweet are angry with him for accepting the results at all -- although I want to be flexible and reasonable, so I'm okay with you removing that reference to the tweet I made in the article and the sentence I put in.
About the HDI -- I don't see any reason to off-hand accept oppositon claims about government statistics being manipulated without proof or evidence. If that were the case, why would Venezuela's HDI have fallen at all if the government were lying about their own HDI indicators? Furthermore, the UN source itself is third-party and objective, and even though it did fall, the most up-to-date report cited in the article you referenced in your reply to me (http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2018_human_development_statistical_update.pdf) still clearly has Venezuela in the "high human development category," and your own source also shows them in the Top 10 for Latin American countries in HDI. Plus, I think it's wrong to accept Raffalli's claim that Venezuela fell 16 spaces in the HDI (it did) but then go on to say we can't trust the report. If we can't trust the report, how could we trust that they fell 16 spaces in it? Clearly Raffalli accepts the veracity of the report, plus I think it paints a more accurate picture to mention both Venezuela's high HDI but also the misery index (itself problematic, but I'm willing to compromise and not make a fuss about the misery index if the HDI is allowed to be mentioned).
It seems we've made a lot of progress together on this issue, let me know how you feel about these points and if we come to a final consensus then we can edit the page to implement the agreed changes so that we're both content with the neutral point of view. :) --Redratatoskr (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Redratatoskr: I feel that we agree in most of the points, so I'll answer to the last point. I have to emphasize, just like I did in the talk page of Maduro's inauguration, that criticizing the government, or in Raffalli's case being a human rights activist, does not mean being part of a political opposition. This arguments have been presented in the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, which has had several audiences about Venezuela, even more since the government does not allow the Commission to enter in the country since 2002, and which in turn can be watched in YouTube; I think they might have subtitles in English. Now, I didn't say that the report can't be trusted, only that it was undue and outdated, and I quoted Raffalli mentioning how this has happened with UNICEF. Despite the crisis, the FAO also published figures that the government was proud about until not long ago. When the numbers weren't so flattering and they started to reflect the crisis, government officials just stopped quoting them, which was something that was mentioned and criticized in one of the last sessions of the Comission. So why is Venezuela still in the high human development category? I have no idea, but it is alright because giving my opinion would be original research; I just think that it is something that should be looked into. My best guess is that, as I understand, the numbers from 2018 aren't reflected. There's overwhelming evidence of the humanitarian crisis that Venezuela is undergoing provided both by national NGOs and international organizations alike: hyperinflation, rampant crime and food and medicine shortages, just to mention few. Even government officials have admitted the grave situation, only that pointing to different causes and magnitude, and the social programs started by Chávez are inefficient in light of the new situation. If you wish, another source besides the misery index can be included to reflect the chaos, but I don't see how a "even though", "but" or "however" can be included. The situation is a disaster from every point of view. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The most egregious problem of this article is that it calls him a dictator in the first sentence. This is a very charged negtive term, and people who advocate for its inclusion in the first sentence should read WP:YESPOV. Emass100 (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

De facto? Why now?Edit

Recommend "de facto" not be added to the intro. It doesn't add anything to the article, particular since it wasn't in their since 2013. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Howdy. Will you please stop adding 'de facto' to Maduro's article intro. It doesn't add anything to the article. If you want to put disputed after January 23, 2019, then fine. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I explained the reasons why Maduro is considered a de facto president in the edit summary. If you can provide arguments of how he's in office de jure or legitimately, it'd be much appreciated. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
De facto wasn't added before January 23, 2019 so why add it now? Just because of events these last few days, one doesn't retroactively question his entire tenure as president. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@GoodDay: If I may, why not? The answer is probably that a consensus was harder to find that after January 23, meaning that this is a good moment to include the wording. Also, "Nevermind, since you're not going to listen"? Please let me remind you to assume good faith. Best wishes. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Best to let others chime in, on whether we 'now' need "de facto" in the lead. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I deleted "the facto" in the intro: I believe there is no reason for "de facto" to be there. His presidency has been undisputed at the very least until Januray 23rd. After that, Guaidò proclaimed himself interim President, which is a charge that does not exist in the Consitution of Venezuela. The partial international recongnition he gained does not change this. Lpcdc3 (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Lpcdc3: I'm afraid to say that you're terribly mistaken. Article 233 of the Venezuelan constitution clearly states that a interim presidency has to be assumed by the president of the National Assembly, which is Guaido's case. This means two things: Guaidó didn't "proclaim himself" and the charge exists in the constitution. It's also false that Maduro's presidency was "undisputed" until Janaury 23; besides the first arguments that I gave before, his first presidential elections had several claims of fraud, only that not as much as the last ones. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Article 233 says that, if the President of the Republic is declared not fit for his charge by the National Assembly before being sworn in as President then the President of the National Assembly is to temporarily substitute the President. His charge is never described as "interim presidency" and he is never defined "president-elect", which is the charge Guaidò was sworn in for, just like the "transition government" Guaidò sworn to insitute is never mentioned in the Consitution. But this is not the main point. The main point is that the National Assembly declared Maduro decayed on January 15th, but it had already been stripped of all power by the TSJ on January the 5th. Also, even if we wrongly assumed the National Assembly to be in its full power, Guaidò still wouldn't be President. Article 233 says the the President of the National Assembly only becomes president if the elected President wasn't sworn in before he was declared decayed by the Assembly. As a matter of fact, though, Maduro was sworn in on January the 10th, five days before the National Assembly declared him decayed. According to Article 233, then, Maduro's vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, should have been named President until elections were held. That's why I still consider Maduro to be both de facto and de jure the President of Venezuela. Lpcdc3 (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
"de facto" is appropriate if just for the simple fact that he is challenged, that there are legislative actions performed by someone else, but he still controls the military and possibly some state assets. Whether he agrees or not, that is de facto - holding the power while others hold claim to the position. Kingsif (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
"de facto" implies he is not president "de jure". The matter is disputed, and that's what should be on the page. Lpcdc3 (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────@Lpcdc3: Huh, if the charge of interim presidency isn't in the Venezuelan constitution, what happens when the office of the presidency is vacant? What about the recent interim presidents in Venezuela, such as Octavio Lepage, Ramón José Velásquez, Diosdado Cabello or even Maduro himself? Of course Guaidó isn't president elect because there weren't elections, but he's the current acting president. If we talk about the TSJ, then we'd start a lengthy discussion about its questioned legitimacy, just like Maduro's. The Tribunal was appointed by the lame duck National Assembly just days after the last parliamentary elections among several irregularities, including the violation of the period of challenges, its lack of responses and the omission of the final selection of the candidates. Not only that, but none of the justices had the years of experience or met the requirements for holding office, including lack of convictions or political affiliation. Did you know that during this appointment a member of the pro government Assembly even voted for himself? Regarding the decayed status of Maduro, the now opposition National Assembly already declared Maduro decayed three years ago. On the other hand, the same article specifies that the vice president shall assume the presidency only if Maduro is declared decayed in the first four years of his government, which is clearly not the case here. And all of this is only if we consider the legal jargon and put aside other reasons why his requirements for holding office are not met, which are also included in the article, such as his nationality, or for instance his human rights abuses. According to Article 350 of the constitution, Maduro should be rejected as president. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The United States and a few of its close allies are not competent to determine Venezuelan constitutional law. Even if they were, we do not describe leaders as de facto when they lack legitimacy. We say for example that Tsai Ing-wen is the president of the Republic of China, even though very few countries recognize her government. And we don't call Trump the de facto president of the U.S. even though his election was rigged by the Russian secret police, according to many. TFD (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: That is a strawman fallacy, nobody has mentioned the recognition by other countries or its "determination of the constitutional law". It was the National Assembly, which is the last government branch to have been elected. In any case, defining the countries that have rejected Maduro's legitimacy as "the United States and a few of its close allies" is downplaying them a lot; 19 countries voted in favor in the OAS to declare Maduro illegitimate.--Jamez42 (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
When you say that the speaker is the president because the election was invalid, that is a matter of constitutional law. In fact it does not appear to be what the constitution says. The recognition of Guaidó has indeed so far come from the U.S., Canada and a number of Latin American countries. While 19 OAS countries voted that Maduro's election was illegimate (with 6 against, 8 abstentions and one absent), they have not yet voted to recognize Guaidó. I don't think we can decide that Guaidó is the de jure president until there is consensus for it. The U.S. + 11 other countries (last time I looked) does not represent a consensus among the world's nations. TFD (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: My point precisely is that the determination of the Venezuelan constitutional law doesn't come from countries abroad, such as the United States, but from the National Assembly. I already explained above that Guaidó took oath under Article 233 of the constitution, besides Articles 333 and 350 if you wish. I don't get why the decision of a government branch and its legal basis is not given importance determining the status of the presidency, and this is only speaking about Guaidó; you can also argue that the presidency is being usurped or that there is a "power vacuum", but there is way more consensus of the illegitimacy of Maduro, which is the subject of this talk page and this discussion. We don't need to determine if Guaidó is the de jure president in order to know if Maduro holds the office de facto.--Jamez42 (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
When you say that the speaker is tne president because the election was invalid, that is a matter of constitutional law. The recognition of Guaidó has indeed so far come from the U.S., Canada and a number of Latin American countries. While 19 OAS countries voted that Maduro's election was illegimate (with 6 against, 8 abstentions and one absent), they have not yet voted to recognize Guaidó. I don't think we can decide that Guaidó is the de jure president until there is consensus for it. The U.S. + 11 other countries (last time I looked) does not represent a consensus among the world's nations. In any case, the appropriate guide is what reliable sources say. When they start referring to Maduro as the de facto president, then we can follow suit. Ironically, the last time a speaker replaced a president, in Honduras, media referred to the speaker as the de facto president.[4] TFD (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: You have just repeated your last message for the most part, without adressing the issues that I mentioned or offering a rebuttal. We're discussing Maduro's condition as de facto president, not Guaido's. However, I'll be happy to provide WP:RS:EFE, El Mundo, El Imparcial, El Diario, El Tiempo Latino, El Tiempo, Vanguardia and MercoPress, just to mention a few. I can even provide reports of NGOs or the OAS explaining how Maduro has growingly lost legitimacy.[5][6][7] Lastly, I don't know why the situation is compared to Honduras' given its huge differences. Even though the coup in Honduras started due to Zelaya's refusal to comply with the Supreme Court's, Zelaya was forcibly ousted by the military, allowing Roberto Micheletti to assume the presidency by force. None of this is similar to the current scenario in Venezuela. The most recent example of a de facto government is Pedro Carmona's, because Chávez was ousted too in a 2002 coup. But it seems Maduro hasn't been forced out, has he? --Jamez42 (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────The sources do not support the proposed wording. The first source EFE says that experts have advised the legislature to declare Maduro a de facto president. The second source, the article in El Imparcial (which appears to be an editorial, hence not a reliable source) says that Venezuela is a de facto totalitarian regime. But whatever it says, it was written during Madura's first term when even the U.S. State Department considered him president de jure. What you need to show is that reliable sources routinely describe him as the de facto president as in for example, "the U.S. Secretary of State today issued a warning to the de facto president of Venezuela." Of course nothing prevents the article from mentioning the constitutional controversy. It would be helpful too if you could use English language sources. TFD (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: What about the rest of the sources, then? Or the reports in any case? --Jamez42 (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

NPOV violations?Edit

Referencing this version, now changed to this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

This article appears to me to violate WP:NPOV guidelines. For example in the lead it is stated: "analysts have attributed Venezuela's decline to both Chávez and Maduro's economic policies,[9][10][11][12] while Maduro has blamed speculation and economic warfare waged by his political opponents". This seems unbalanced: obviously Maduro's explanation is subject to a "well he would say that" reaction, whereas "analysts" conveys a spurious impression of objectivity and authority? DaveApter (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

And again - in the lead- "Despite encouragement to resign as president when his first term expired" - without stating by whom he was encouraged, what was their authority or their vested interests, or what alternative "encouragements" he may have had. DaveApter (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The only problem with the lead is that it should be a summary, and the citations should be sprinkled in the body of the article where appropriate. Nothing you have mentioned has anything to do with NPOV. 12:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

If you are an expert on Wikipedia policies, why are you editing anonymously from an IP account? DaveApter (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with DaveApter; these lines clearly violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Iamextremelygayokay (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

"analysts have attributed Venezuela's decline to both Chávez and Maduro's economic policies" should say some analysts, but besides that, it is in fact NPOV and well cited. ShimonChai (talk) 09:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

This article includes highly biased propagandaEdit

I haven't taken the time to go through this entire entry. I was just trying to find out on what grounds President Maduro is being called a "dictator." But I soon came across highly misleading and untruthful statements.

For example, the article says "On 20 May 2018, Maduro was reelected into the presidency in what the Atlantic Council and Financial Times described as a show election[29][30] which had the lowest voter turnout in Venezuela's modern history.[31]." Notice the single sentence juxtaposes the claim this was a show election with a statement about voter turnout. As a whole this suggests that the election was illegitimate. It is misleading because there is no necessary causal connection between an election's legitimacy and voter turnout: turnout for the 2018 Venezuelan election was 46.07% [1], but that of the 1996 U.S. presidential election was almost as low at 49%, as were several other U.S. presidential elections since the 1970s.[2] Does this mean they all were illegitimate? If not, the gratuitous mention of turnout is misleading at best. More importantly, the article doesn't mention that most of the Venezuelan opposition boycotted the election, which no doubt contributed to the low turnout and very likely was its major cause.[3]

A second example is in the article's second paragraph: "His presidency has coincided with a decline in Venezuela's socioeconomic status, with crime, inflation, poverty and hunger increasing; analysts have attributed Venezuela's decline to both Chávez and Maduro's economic policies,[12][13][14][15] while Maduro has blamed speculation and economic warfare waged by his political opponents.[16][17][18][19][20][21]." This does not mention that oil constitutes 98% of Venezuela's exports or that the U.S. has been its main trade partner.[4] But Maduro's presidency also coincided with the collapse of oil prices.[5] and the imposition of U.S. sanctions against Venezuela.[6] Why not mention this fact? In light of the structure of Venezuela's economy, this omission is highly misleading.

But wait, there's more! Most of the sources cited in the first set of references in the previous quotation, in which the article claims "analysts have attributed ... to Chávez and Maduro's economic policies," do nothing of the sort. Reference 12, which is to a CNN report, simply talks about conditions in Venezuela; reference 14 is by an Italian professor of history, and even if this qualified him as an "analyst," what he wrote is basically a sarcastic critique of leftish celebrities (e.g., Michael Moore, Sean Penn) who praised Chavez and, more generally, the article pokes tragic sarcasm at Latin America's historical populism; similarly, reference 15 is an article in El País, a Spanish newspaper, and although the article seems fair and actually cites legitimate sources written by actual analysts rather than reporters, like a report from Cepal (the U.N.-sponsored Economic Commission for Latin American and the Caribbean), the article itself says almost nothing about the regime's economic policies but instead discusses its social-political policies, which redistributed "oil surpluses with a welfare-oriented approach" rather than address "poverty in a structural way." In short, of the four references cited, only one is by anyone who can legitimately be called an "analyst,." It is the only one that even attempts to provide a serious analysis of Maduro's economic policies, and even it does so mainly by drawing analogies to the former Soviet Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John von Neumann (talkcontribs) February 24, 2019 (UTC)

So, a US election had a similar turnout to that of the 2018 Venezuelan elections? Good find. If that stays that way, and also if Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders and all their noteworthy figures are jailed, exiled or forbidden to run, and if the Democratic Party itself is banned because of some legal technicality, and if opposing parties received all sorts of daunting legal requirements, and if new voters and voters from abroad had even more daunting requirements to be allowed to vote, and the time for political campaign was legally limited to 26 days but such limit was only enforced for those who are not Trump, and if those people receiving food aids were theatened to vote for the government under the risk of losing the aids, and if freedom of the press became non-existent... then, and only then, we may draw comparisons between the elections in the US and Venezuela. Do you really want to know why so many people do not consider Maduro a legitimate ruler? See ABC International. Cambalachero (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

We can report others saying he is a dictator, but we cannot say he is a dictator as it's a biased term. Mercy11 (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Dictator [dik-tey-ter, dik-tey-ter]: noun. "A person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession". Call a spade a spade. Cambalachero (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Maduro lost an election, and then created a new parliament where only his party could run, then started to rule by decree... The facts are that he is a dictator. The facts aren't biased, we aren't saying that it is bad that he is a dictator, just that he is a dictator. ShimonChai (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
wikipedia does not report facts, it references facts reported by reliable neutral third parties -- this is clear-cut established fundamental policy 157.131.157.19 (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Here are several citations, I can keep going. ShimonChai (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "2018 Venezuelan presidential election". Wikipedia. Retrieved 24 February 2019.
  2. ^ "Voter turnout in the United States presidential elections". Wikipedia. Retrieved 24 February 2019.
  3. ^ "Venezuela Holds Presidential Election But Main Opposition Is Boycotting It". NPR. National Public Radio. Retrieved 24 February 2019.
  4. ^ "Economy of Venezuela". Wikipedia. Retrieved 24 February 2019.
  5. ^ "Crude Oil Prices - 70 Year Historical Chart". macrotrends. Retrieved 24 February 2019.
  6. ^ "Policy and Implementation Venezuela-Related Sanctions". U.S. Department of State. Federal Governement of the United States. Retrieved 24 February 2019.

You will have no joy, Mercy11. This is how things work. One view is presented as the truth and so long as one can find a blog (Vox, The Hill) or an editorial in a rightwing publication such as The Economist or what have you, that makes it factual. A few editors will camp out to make sure that that "truth" prevails and this really bad article will stay really bad long after you've forgotten it exists. Of course this should present Maduro as a "political figure" or even a "leader", which are in fact neutral. But as I say, NPOV is now interpreted as "present a very one-sided view so long as you can find a blog that agrees with it. Grace Note (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I linked the Washington Post.. Here is also CNN, NY Times. ShimonChai (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Although the lead says, without providing a source, that Maduro has "become the country's de facto dictator," this is not stated anywhere in the article. All the article says is that he has been described that way by the U.S. and its allies and by his political opponents. Per "biographies of living persons", claims of this nature should not be made without sources. Also, arguments that he is in fact a dictator based on how well he fits the definition is a clear violation of original research. TFD (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I have provided a ton of legitimate citations... Edit: here is Forbes. ShimonChai (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@ShimonChai: I don't think this is a very good argument. Forbes contributor blogs are not reliable sources (see WP:RSP), and an op-eds in The Hill/AEI are not reliable for unattributed statements (see WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSORG). Many of the sources you provide you provide merely use the word "dictator" indirectly their headlines, in some cases referencing other's statements, e.g. "Critics Say He Can’t Beat a Dictator. This Venezuelan Thinks He Can" in NYT. Note that there have been prior discussions on material only sourced to the headlines of articles here and here) -- the general consensus appears to be that the headlines should be taken with a grain of salt and not be the sole basis of support for most claims. The sources currently used in the article, therefore, don't support the factual claim Maduro is a dictator. Even in cases where contentious wording is used widely across reliable sources (which I don't believe you've demonstrated), WP:TERRORIST would suggest we use in-text attribution. —0xf8e8 (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the discussion whether he is a dictator or not is beside the point. Even if he is (and personally i think he is, indeed), it's not for us to say. We can say he 'acts dictatorial' or that he is considered a dictator by international actors and the opposition, but to claim that he is unequivocally a dictator, i think is taking a stance and that's not right. We call Pinochet, Franco, Hitler dictators because there is a consensus in academia and the sources, but here, as we can see, is highly disputed and up for debate. Coltsfan (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem here is sentences making a general statement and then globbing on six sources to try to make it stick. It is a problem of attribution; the article should be specifically stating who calls him a dictator (that could be a whole article/list in and of itself); I am starting to try to attribute those statements, but there is lack of attribution everywhere, covered by sticking multiple sources on the end of a statement. Plenty of people call him a dictator; we just need to say who they are, so that wikipedia is not saying it. (Propaganda is the wrong word here: the dictator word is easily and well sourced to reliable sources.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Undue weightEdit

To be objective, the first sentence should say he is president of Venezuela, assumed office in 2013, and re-elected in 2018.

The second sentence is problematic. That his legitimacy is contested by 1/4 of the world countries is not worthy of the second sentence.Emass100 (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Emass100: His second election was widely disputed nationwide, including the National Assembly; I suggest reading the Conduct section in the election article. It's worth mentioning that legitimacy and democracy is not only granted by origin or elections. Maduro has severly curtailed civil liberties, including freedom of expression, of the press and of protest, killing protesters and attacking journalists. He disregarded the National Assembly's elections, prevented a recall referendum that threatened his stay in power and has consolidated power, in a way that there's currently no division of power in Venezuela. I should also mention that there's no judiciary independence since over 90% of the judges are provisional, meaning that they can be dismissed or transferred discretionally by the executive branch. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
So what? How does this make him not the president of the country? Emass100 (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Because, at the very least, the last presidential elections were not legitimate. I have also mentioned the main aspects of a dictatorship, and believe me I'm falling short in describing it. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Not legitimate... according to the counties in red. However, these elections are definitely currently legitimising his de facto and de jure power in the country at the moment, which is ultimately what is factual and what we care about here on Wikipedia. Presidents can be dictators but the most accurate term for Maduro is President because Venezuela retains aspects of a democracy. The term "dictator' is not mentioned in the lead of Vladimir Putin's page even though all you described above applies to him and his legitimacy as ruler of Russia is contestedEmass100 (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Not legitimate according to, as stated above, the Venezuelan National Assembly, the Venezuelan political opposition, the candidates that ran off against Maduro (which I should mention included dissident chavistas), to the Foro Penal Venezolano, to Súmate, to Voto Joven, to the Venezuelan Electoral Observatory, to the Venezuelan Citizen Electoral Network, to the Episcopal Conference of Venezuela and to Movimiento Estudiantil, just to mention a few, and only inside the country. These aren't caprices, among the irregularities were irregularities of the electoral schedule, lack of the Constituent Assembly's competencies to summon the elections, impeding participation of opposition political parties, and the lack of time for standard electoral functions. Knowing that Maduro even refused to have fair and free elections, and considering all the autocratic traits previously mentioned, it doesn't make sense to say that "Venezuela retains aspects of a democracy". --Jamez42 (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Venezuela has elected a constituent assembly, a president, governors, state assemblies, municipal offices. The rule of law remains. I want to stress that legitimacy is what justifies the rule of a government. The Venezuelan government's de facto and de jure rule is legitimised by the latest presidential elections. Since they are, in fact, governing, it means that these legitimising aspects are working for those who are governed. Emass100 (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Emass100, you are correct that this text has not been adequately summarized to this article, but incorrect in your assertions of due weight according to reliable sources. Have a look at 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, where the text is developed. It needs to be better summarized back to here, in the body of the article, and then the poor lead here needs to be re-written. I tried to deal with some of the worst, but the lead cannot be entirely fixed unless someone writes the article correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that's pretty biased, huh?Edit

Calling a foreign leader a dictator despite him being democratically elected, regardless of what conspiracy theories you have about him, is pretty absurd. Wikipedia doesn't call Trump a dictator despite the fact that most of the people who voted did so against him and only 20~ percent of people eligible to vote voted for him, so that unbiased stance should be kept up and you shouldn't call him in a dictator, or at least wait more than one paragraph before doing so.

Make a criticism section for your whining just like every other article. This is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.201.104 (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, it has absolutely nothing to do with the massive human rights violations perpetrated by his government or his authoritarian political maneuvers such as establishing an illegitimate Constituent Assembly or ruling by decree. 201.2.94.8 (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Regardless, it does not call for the subject to be smeared as a dictator in the lead.Emass100 (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources when requesting changes to the article. The preponderance of reliable sources do NOT say that he was democratically elected. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reasonable argument for requesting changes to an article; Wikipedia gives due weight to what reliable sources say, and the weight of reliable sources do not have Maduro democratically elected. Even the company that ran the voting machines called it outright fraud, but that's just a small piece of the big picture.

The "dictator" topic is poorly developed in the article (it could warrant en entire section), and should be better developed in the body of the article, and then simply summarized to the lead. First, the article needs to explain how he came to be called a dictator by the combination of lack of checks and balances on the executive, combined with rights abuses and no rule of law. Then, the body of the article could quite easily do this:

  • Maduro has been labeled a dictator by world leaders such as A, B, and C; governmental organizations such as D and E; human rights organizations such as F and G; notable journalists such as Jorge Ramos and Fernando del Rincón; mainstream news outlets such as the Irish Times and H and I; and commentators such as Roger Noriega, J and K.

The sources are there; that this article has overcited one statement and not spelled it out and correctly attributed the term is not an indication of a "smear"-- it's an indication of the poor writing in this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Second sentenceEdit

"Some commentators note he has gradually consolidated enough power to become the country's de facto dictator."

It is grossly misleading because (1) he did not "gradually consolidate enough power", he was elected president twice; (2) the phrase "de facto" serves no purpose here; (3) dictator is a charged word, and the commentators calling him a dictator are given undue weight in the first paragraph.Emass100 (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

If you believe he was freely and fairly "elected president twice", you are unfamiliar with the abundance of reliable sources on this topic. (Which doesn't excuse that those facts are not well developed in this article.) One, two, three, and ... well, you can find Google as well as I can.

As but one easy example, the Pope won't mediate with Maduro because, Maduro has not followed the four conditions he put last time (open a channel for humanitarian aid, hold free elections, free political prisoners, and re-establish the constitutionally-elected National Assembly). But ... surprise, this article does not develop that text ... you have to go to another article on Wikipedia or this one to read that. That text and those should be incorporated here. As one example. This article is not POV because of what it says-- the problem is what it doesn't say, because that content is elsewhere. This article suffers from "no one wanting to write it", but your claims about due weight relative to reliable sources are incorrect, and your knowledge of Venezuela is lacking. You, Emass100, should be more familiar with the topic before labeling it POV. Label the lack of development and problematic writing all you want, but that's not what I see you doing-- I see you being truly unaware of what sources say on the topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Extremely biased introEdit

Hi everyone,

I'm concerned with numerous biased edits that are being added to the intro of this article, such as:

"Some commentators note he has gradually consolidated enough power to become the country's de facto dictator."

"Most noteworthy opposition leaders were jailed, exiled or forbidden to run, there was no international observation, election audit was carried out by the regime itself, and scare tactics suggested people that they may lose their jobs or social welfare if they did not vote for Maduro."

I understand that some of us may not like Maduro or see his policies as authoritarian, or that he is indeed called a dictator by numerous countries and organizations, but we are being misinformative and at worst violating Wikipedia's laws of neutrality by ignoring the other side of the story: that 22 countries recognize Maduro as being the legitimate President of Venezuela, and that the country, at least on the outside, maintains rule of law.

I suggest that we change the former sentence to, "Maduro is a Venezuelan politician who has served as President of Venezuela since 2013, but whose legitimacy has been disputed since January 2019." This sentence takes into account the countries that don't recognize Maduro while still not placing undue weight on them, as per Wikipedia's standards.

I humbly suggest for any future edits that we don't try to impose one single opinion or narrative on the entire article. Let's be as objective as possible. HandIsNotNookls (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but I would put the challenge to his legitimacy in a second sentence which specifies who is questioning his legitimacy.Emass100 (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I believe the "some commentators" is actually too watered down, since the perponderance of reliable sources, and almost all of the western world, make statements that he is a dictator; it is not "some commentators" at all.

    Most opposition leaders were jailed, etc., and this is well sourced throughout the Venezuelan articles; again, if you want to change what you can find from every reliable source on the planet, you need to present sources. Arguing from WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't how Wikipedia works. Please prevent reliable sources that have not been included.

    As to "disputed since 2019", that's just not true or backed by sources. The dispute goes to at least the fraudulent 2018 election.

    I see four sections (which should have been one) above, with not a single policy-based reason for requesting these changes. And not a single source provided. This looks like gratuitous tagging of the article based on IDONTLIKEIT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I checked BBC, CNN and al Jazeera and none of them refer to him as a dictator, instead calling him "Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro." Fox News and the Washington Times though occasionally use the term, but more often do not. TFD (talk) 05:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
They all have good and plenty mentions of those who have called him a dictator, but this article never develops that. The dictator text is so poorly written and constructed as to be indefensible-- not because of POV, but because of poor writing. Saying that "commentators" labeled him a dictator is as useless and meaningless as saying that Abby Martin or Max Blumenthal think Venezuela is a democracy; where's a section that discusses a) how Venezuela came to be where it is in terms of consolidation of power in a human rights-abusing administration, and b) who all specifically labels Maduro a dictator? I have done what I could, but this article suffers more from what is missing than from what is written; it's part of Wikipedia ... where random people have chunked poorly written, poorly attributed, overcited pieces of text into the lead, with no sense of how to build or organize the body of an article, and then summarize it back to the lead. The pieces of text that should be built into the body of this article are spread across similarly poorly written Venezuelan articles, and never summarized back to here. As I find time, I will try to start sections below of text that needs to be added here. That people are labeling the article "POV' because of the dictator issue is an example-- not an indication that the article is POV, because the "dictator" text, if correctly written and attributed, is WELL and EASY to establish. The problem here is not content, but MISSING content, poor writing, and lack of attribution, covered by over-citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

"Maintains rule of law"Edit

HandIsNotNookls wrote: "... Venezuela, and that the country, at least on the outside, maintains rule of law". While it is surprising that anyone who can find the internet in a modern age could say that there is a "rule of law" in Venezuela, it is correct that this article doesn't develop that topic enough to rebut this notion-- because that is done in other articles, and not summarized back to here. I suspect this articles suffers from years of people thinking that the obvious need not be written, because anyone can find it on google. Just as it is easy to include the lack of rule of law in this article, it should be easy for you (HANN) to find sources that discuss the rule of law or lack thereof under Maduro. Starting with his own chief prosecutor, Luisa Ortega, left the country because of the lack of a rule of law. Here are some starters:

And so on. There are hundreds. The article is poorly written, but the things it says are not POV-- it's the things it doesn't say because no one has written it. To start a section, claiming that there is "rule of law" in Venezuela, defies credibility. Editors tagging or labeling an article POV should do the minimum amount of checking of reliable sources to verify their claims. (That doesn't excuse that these topics are not even developed here.) Information about lack of rule of law-- just as information about who all calls Maduro a dictator-- is at your google fingertips, and not a reason for labeling the article POV. I wish we had a maintenance tag that could be put on the article that more simply says, This Article is Awful, but POV isn't the right label. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

More "dictator" sources with other text:

ALSO:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

UpdatedEdit

I have done all I can for now, leaving lots to do as of this version. If others have specific issues that need priority attention, please provide reliable sources to back your wishes. The article is nowhere near presentable, but vague claims of POV without reliable sources aren't helpful and are hard to act upon. The whole overcited unattributed mess that was in the lead is now in the bottom of the Presidency section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Starting again; I am going to begin to work on fixing the "dictator" thing, using the links above, but will work in sandbox first. So much to do here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Done getting those sources in. I have not worked on the "Lawlessness" sources above. Too much to do, enough for today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, still to do-- Luisa Ortega is NOT the only person to call the voting in the Constituent Assembly irregular, and attributing her does give that impression, as pointed out by @Jamez42:. That (in the lead) still needs to be addressed, by working in other sources, but I've no more energy for today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the work, Sandy. I'll give my two cents and recommend to also note the prohibition to summon a recall referendum, it's probably the first time the dictator label started to gain traction. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jamez42: I'm kinda hoping to be done here; cleaning up what I did was quite an effort for an article I don't even care to edit. Would you be interested in finishing up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Gladly :) I realized that one of the references cited already commented on this, so I made this shy edit. I think all aspects have been covered. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Tortured prose, overcitedEdit

No wonder people think this is biased; the writing is dreadful, too much is in the lead, and everything is overcited. These two sentences are tortured, and need to be totally rewritten:

  • On 20 May 2018, Maduro was reelected into the presidency. Most noteworthy opposition leaders were jailed, exiled or forbidden to run, there was no international observation, election audit was carried out by the regime itself, and scare tactics suggested people that they may lose their jobs or social welfare if they did not vote for Maduro.[18][19] which had the lowest voter turnout in Venezuela's modern history.[20]

MUCH easier just to say that he was elected under what was WIDELY considered a fraudulent election, and there are gazillions of high quality sources that say exactly that. The problem here is trying to shove too much information into the lead. MANY sources say the election was fraudulent ... all of the reasons don't need to be shoved in here. The reader is left confused. Too much for me to fix in one editing session. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The lead is dreadful. I did what I could, but this lead is so verbose, so overcited, has so much unnecessary detail, poorly explained, not in order ... that I can't fix it in one editing session, and I am not surprised readers a) are not taking from it the information they need, and b) believe it to be POV because it is so tortured. I see nothing in the lead that is not mainstream reliably sourced (or sourceable), but anyone who reads if may justifiably think it is POV, simply because of how tortured it is. Needs major fixing. Keep it simple; if it can't be said with one or two citations, it is too tortured and should not be there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Done for nowEdit

As of this version, I am stopping for now. The article is still a wreck, but I have at least cut the size, and gotten a cleaner table of contents, so that further work can be done. I tried to move all of the overcited, unattributed text out of the lead to the bottom of this section; it still needs lots of work. I cut most of the Presidency stuff to Presidency of Nicolás Maduro (since what was here anyway said ... nothing). Most of what should be written here just isn't here-- it is scattered across other Venezuelan articles, it seems no one ever took an interest in improving this article, but that is all I can do for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

No mention of Maduro, moved to talkEdit

I don't know why this is in this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Secretary of the President investigationEdit

In December 2015 following controversial investigations of money laundered drug money by the Bal Harbour Police Department and Glades County Police without the cooperation of the United States Department of Justice, a report from Miami Herald revealed that much of the drug money was ultimately funneled from multiple banks into the Venezuelan Banesco Bank with some of the largest payments wired to the bank. It was found that William Amaro Sanchez, a secretary and longtime friend of Maduro who was described as his "right-hand-man", had over $200,000 of the drug money transferred to his account. Juan Carlos Escort [es], head of Banesco, denied the allegations, although unnamed Banesco employees told The Miami Herald that it was Amaro's account and provided information that included his account number, full name and Venezuelan government identification number.[1][2]

Following these revelations, Panamanian lawyer and politician Guillermo Cochez called on Panama's Public Ministry to investigate accounts in Banesco related to the Venezuelan government, including accounts belonging to Willam Amaro Sanchez and also possible accounts belonging to relatives of President Maduro's wife, Cilia Flores. After Flores' nephews were arrested by the United States Drug Enforcement Administration, it was discovered that one of the arrested nephews, Efraín Campo Flores, owned a Panamanian company, with Cilia Flores and other relatives belonging to the company's board of directors.[3]

References

  1. ^ Sallah, Michael; Delgado, Antonio (26 December 2015). "Bal Harbour to Caracas: Millions in drug money". The Miami Herald. Retrieved 20 May 2016.
  2. ^ Sallah, Michael (28 December 2015). "Bank denies report that Maduro aide was sent drug money". The Miami Herald. Retrieved 20 May 2016.
  3. ^ "Denuncian en Panamá a Maduro y a su esposa por posible blanqueo de dólares". El Nuevo Herald. 4 January 2016. Retrieved 20 May 2016.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletionEdit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

"Disputed" / "Dictator"Edit

This article is incredibly biased and full of biased sources from pro-capitalist "news" sources like Financial Times.

If this is the standard, why not edit the Donald Trump article to call him a "disputed president" or "dictator" since literally more than half of the country didn't vote for him?

The editorializing on this article is atrocious and this article needs to be locked-down and cleaned up to a neutral POV. 67.168.187.188 (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTAFORUM; if you have reliable sources that you believe have not been included, please provide them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
As I said elsewhere, if Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders and all noteworthy Democrat figures are jailed, exiled or forbidden to run, and if the Democratic Party itself is banned because of some legal technicality, and if the remaining opposing parties received all sorts of daunting legal requirements, and if new voters and voters from abroad had even more daunting requirements to be allowed to vote, and the time for political campaign was legally limited to 26 days but such limit was only enforced for those who are not Trump, and if those people receiving food aids were theatened to vote for the government under the risk of losing the aids, and if freedom of the press became non-existent... then, and only then, we may draw comparisons between Trump and Maduro. Of course that there is a big part of the US that did not vote for Trump. There's nothing strange or extraordinary about that, check the results of previous elections. Cambalachero (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Policy says we must rely on the biased pro-capitalist sources. However, I think our description goes beyond how they normally describe Maduro. For example, the Encyclopedia Britannica does not refer to Maduro as a "disputed president."[9] Furthermore, per WP:WEASEL, if we say his presidency is disputed, then we need to state who disputes it. I suggest we just note that Maduro's election was disputed by most Venezuelan opposition parties, and fifty (or whatever number it is now) countries, including the United States. TFD (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't see helpful describing sources as "biased", "pro-capitalist", "pro-US", "anti-Maduro", etc. However, I can agree that other sources could be used. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
We do say (in the second sentence) who disputes it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
What about Maduro "is a Venezuelan politician serving as President of Venezuela. Since 2013, the United States, Canada, and most of Western Europe support opposition leader Juan Guaidó as interim president." TFD (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
(I think you dropped some pieces in your proposal above, re 2013 and 2019?) What we have there now[10] basically says that (who supports Guaido), but is broader, as it also says who supports Maduro; it seems strange to leave out of his bio the countries that support him. Also, to say that he is "serving as president" when a large part of the world says he is not, seems to be moving in the wrong direction re: POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Nicolás Maduro" page.