Talk:Nicolás Maduro

Active discussions

Changes to LEDEEdit

I disagree with this edit by Jamez42 which I reverted with edit summary:

that is not what the AP said. Also, that is an incorrect SUMMARY of what is in the article's WP:BODY. Last, this sentence is starting to look like a WP:COATRACK.

I actually meant citation farm rather than WP:COATRACK. I don't understand why Jamez42 reverted back to his preferred version again rather than following WP:BRD. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Since you have quoted your edit summary, I will quote mine: That is why the Reuters reference is being included. The Disputed presidency section clearly states the same content. Browsing through the talk page, it doesn't seem that this change has been particularly controversial in this article.
As far as I know, WP:CITEKILL applies to references talking about the same content, and this is usually the case when we're talking about five or more references. The current lead only has three, and I introduced the Reuters article since it specifically mentions Latin America. In my opinion it is particularly useful given that Canada is part of the Lima Group, that it is already mentioned before and that other countries outside of said group have alo recognized Guaidó.
As I have mentioned before, while edit behaviour is important, please try to focus on the content rather than on the editor. If there are important guidelines or policies issues with the edit, or if any change to the body is preferable, I welcome any discussion on the issue and how to improve it. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
It is quite possible that most Latin American nations recognise Guaido as president. However the Disputed Presidency section says “several Latin American countries supported Guaidó as interim president” and “as of March 2019, over 50 countries, the OAS, and the Lima Group do not recognize Maduro as the legitimate president of Venezuela” so it does not say most of Latin America. The Reuters article does in fact say that most Latin American countries support Guaido, however the article is dated January 2019 and there has been at least one change (Argentina) since then. It would be more correct to say that soon after Guaido declared himself President, most Latin American countries recognised him. Or perhaps find a more recent article which gives the current positions of Latin American countries. Burrobert (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
You would also have to consider El Salvador, Bolivia and Uruguay as well. A more recent article would be in order, but that doesn't mean that the current one is invalid. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say the January article was not valid. It may still be valid but it would be inaccurate to say most Latin American countries recognise Guaido based on it. It would be more accurate to say that in late January 2019 most latin American countries recognised Guaido. Or find a more recent source. No matter which source you use it would probably be best to mention the date to which the statement refers. As we know situations change. Burrobert (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Date of transfer for Non-aligned movement chairEdit

@Stalin990: In this edit, what is your source for the date? There are two refs in this article: 18th_Summit_of_the_Non-Aligned_Movement but I did not find a date. I didn't see a date on the official site for the NAM. Hence I am putting a citation-needed tag on the date. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Never-mind. This might work. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Also found this. Would be nice to find more WP:INDEPENDENT sources. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

ImageEdit

@Baprow and ZiaLater: Please explain the merits of the images you prefer. Both you claim there is a consensus, but I see no discussion here coming to a consensus. I will likely weigh in. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

In my case, I have claimed that there was a consensus because the current image was placed here for the first time on February 7, 2019. ZiaLater opposed the change then, defending the previous one (not the image he defends now). However, from February 14 until mid October 2019 the image has remained in the infobox of the article without anyone modifying it. Regarding the merits of the image, I consider it to be a high quality image which is more adequately illuminated (without excess of light) and that it shows the person's face well.--Baprow (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion.
Consensus: I think in the future, rather than saying "consensus" without context, I suggest in the edit comment you say instead, "has been stable from February 14 until mid October 2019". However, the dates you provided are not correct. The first image was actually changed to the second image on September 20, 2019 by Caveman Caveman Caveman--not mid-October as you contend. So the first image was stable for about 7 months, but the second image has been in place for 3 months when you tried to change it back on December 25, 2018. So, I believe the claim that the first image has a consensus has been trumped by the stability of the new image.
Merits: I agree with you that the second image is over-exposed, and the first image is more interesting. I'm not sure the quality is actually superior, but the suit certainly is, and that is part of what makes the first image slightly more powerful.
However, the second images have advantages that, IMHO, make it the better of the two.
  • Clothing: Maduro considers himself to be a man of the people, including the working class, the poor, and the indigenous population, rather than a representative of the elites, as part of chavismo. The clothing he is wearing in the second image is more consistent with that. The first image with the nice suit makes him look like any other politician, representing the elites, the wealthy, and the powerful corporate interests.
  • Face: Although the expression on the image of the first face is quite interesting--likely because it uses Rembrandt lighting. But what I also see is the "half-lit face", which is often used in film to show ambiguity, ambivalence, or two-sides to a person, personality, or motives, such as the evil Doppelgänger (or double). I regret I could not find a good source after due diligence. This weak source points out that half-lighting can be used to "emphasize a character's sinister side." This is problematic given that he is often characterized in the U.S. and Western media--and especially by U.S. officials--as a "dictator" to advance U.S. foreign policy objectives of regime change.
First image: When I first saw the first image, I immediately thought it looked very similar to Stalin (like the image here or here) and that the choice of the image was non-neutral and possibly in order to support the "dictator" and Stalin image.
In the first image he is looking away from the camera, as if he has more important things to ponder, has "higher" objectives, or is oblivious, and unable to look you in the eye and focus on you. He is in some other world.
He also has a disgruntled face with furrowed eye-browns, suggesting he is an angry man or spiteful man, again supporting the "dictator" narrative.
Second Image: The second image has none of those problems. He is evenly lighted and looks straight into the camera with a somewhat somber but friendly face ready to engage the reporter in an interview. He looks more humble and receptive.
The composition of the second image is weak to terrible, with the off-centered chair causing unnecessary imbalance. Further imbalance is created by the unnecessary brighter light on the left in the background compared to the right, asymmetry in the two sides of his collar--accentuated by the color contrast between tan collar and white undershirt and the fact that it is right in the center of the frame--and even asymmetry in this mustache. The out-of-focus background colors do not compliment the portrait but are more distracting and create confusion and mystery, making one ask, "What is that big out-of-focus orange thing on the right?" (The first image has a similar object to the left). His hair is more unkempt in the second image. The microphone and earpiece needlessly clutter the image. And, as we both agree, it is over-exposed. Most of these elements create unnecessary tension, confusion and distraction from the portrait. But despite all these problems with the composition, I still find the the clothing, his looking us in the eye, friendly look, etc. as so important compared to the demonic look of the first, that it is the better choice.
As I think should be obvious from my analysis of the two images, there is no "objective" way to portray a person (or any other subject) in a photograph. Any photo will give a very different perspective of the subject.
I asked four friends which image they thought was more appropriate and they universally said the second.
For the reasons above I prefer the second image, and I believe there is a slightly stronger consensus for it too--given ZiaLater's preference for it. However, I am open to other ideas and the possibility of another better picture. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment: I can't seem to find a discussion regarding the image of the article, but I would like to ask editors to focus on guidelines such as MOS:IMAGES and not on opinions. The Spanish Wikipedia did have a discussion regarding the image, and among other factors, image resolution, noise and sharpness where cited. I personally don't have any preference between any of the two. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not have a preference, but the second image does seem to be more neutral and is more polished. I thought there was a discussion approving it, but I may have been mistaken.----ZiaLater (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think that in the first image Maduro looks like Stalin. He is only serious and looking slightly to the side. And the lighting in the first photo is more uniform, without that spotlight on the left that in my opinion unbalances the whole.--Baprow (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Third ImageEdit

I do not think the third image is an improvement. It has a ghost of white in the lower left corner. I have restored it to the second image. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Baprow: @ZiaLater: --Jamez42 (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The third image is quite busy and blurry.----ZiaLater (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletionEdit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Nominated for the main page at ITNEdit

-Ad Orientem (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

American worldview biasEdit

While it is appropriate to mention the charges laid against the president, adding this in the second sentence of the article of a living person is not appropriate. A. it does not represent a global viewpoint, as the charges were laid only be america is constitutes an american point of view B. it introduces bias, as it weights the overview of the article unduly frames Nicolás Maduro poorly C. these events are still in progress, and editing could be premature.

I vote that any mention of charges against him are kept strictly in the chronological order of his political career and the article summary reflects this

--Willthewanderer (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

IndictmentEdit

@Kingsif: I've been trying to find the text in the sources dealing with the criticism of William Barr's recent announcement, specifically while the indictment was criticized as purely political – more cocaine is shipped from Colombia through Central America than Venezuela, but the US has more positive relationships with their leaders – and as serving to hinder Venezuela properly organizing their response to, and accessing aid to help during, the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Venezuela. In particular, Maduro had been offering to hold talks with the opposition about handling the outbreak in the country shortly before the indictment, and then called this off, but I can't find it. I was wondering if I was missing it in one of the references. Many thanks in advance! --Jamez42 (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

From the Guardian piece (I've only read that and the BBC, more neutral than the US ones) - the following is directly quoted, I have bolded the statements that are reflected in the article: But US data for 2018, which shows 210 tons of cocaine passing through Venezuela, shows that six times as much passed through Guatemala in the same period. “The evidence they point to against Maduro is thin, which suggests this is more about politics than about drugs,” said Geoff Ramsey, director of the Venezuela programme at the Washington Office on Latin America thinktank. “Venezuela’s nowhere close to a primary transit country for US-bound cocaine. If the US government wanted to address the flow of cocaine they’d focus on corruption in places like Honduras and Guatemala – both governments that the administration has coddled in recent years.” The charges torpedoed efforts to break a standoff between Maduro, supported by Russia and China, and the US-backed opposition leader, Juan Guaidó. On Thursday afternoon, Tarek William Saab, the prosecutor general and a close ally of Maduro, announced an investigation into Guaidó, Alcalá – the ex-general also indicted by the US – and a host of alleged co-conspirators. “Guaidó and his North American advisers planned to bathe Venezuela in blood,” Saab tweeted following the announcement. Just a day earlier, Maduro had extended an olive branch to his opponents because of the Covid-19 crisis. “I’m ready to meet with all sectors that want to talk about the coronavirus pandemic,” he said in a televised address on Wednesday. But that offer appeared to have been rescinded following the US charges. “From the US and Colombia they have conspired and given the order to fill Venezuela with violence,” Maduro tweeted on Thursday morning. “No negotiation is possible now,” said one source close to the US administration and the Venezuelan opposition. “There aren’t going to be elections, how could there be?” Kingsif (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@Kingsif: That looks alright; many thanks! --Jamez42 (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The Bounty 15,000,000$Edit

Whatever you want to call it. The indictment has years of study and main government funding by Maduro and cronies, with some trickling of crude oil and dirty gold mining, etc. This guy is as the worst! And USA has more than proof! Ask any social media Venezuela journalists! This is no light thing to do! Or to be considered as such! Any allied of the USA would agree! It is a worse case, than Noriega of PANAMA. There are already actors being judged in the USA, and many more to be caught, of this huge GANG, running a Country into the ground!

With the revamped US Military/Navy action for the Caribbean and Eastern Seabord protection, of this security growing DRUG problem, the funneling through Central America will be very limited and noticeable and also more controlable. PLEASE do not give doubt of what Maduro and cronies are. 2001:569:7E34:8700:7C81:83AA:15DD:58D4 (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Return to "Nicolás Maduro" page.