Open main menu


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 (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Here are several citations, I can keep going. ShimonChai (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


  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 (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. (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:


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


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)

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. (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."[2] 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[3] 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)

I totally agree. This is completely biased. The tone is pro- Guaido. Let me tell you that 80 percent of Venezuelans didn't even know who Guaido was untill he declared himself as the president. Maduro was democratically elected. The tone of the piece needs to change. Sparrow86 (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Moved to talk for sourcingEdit

Source (poorly formatted) does not verify text, yet this was placed in the lead with no mention in body. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I have revised the source. — MusenInvincible (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
now we have something that says it is a syllabus for an arts course: could you please locate a good source for this? Surely, the "largest group outside of the UN" will have been mentioned in reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ About Non-Aligned Movement Non Aligned Movement
  2. ^ "About Non-Aligned Movement". India Today. 16 January 2019. Retrieved 25 March 2019.

Here are the sources I can find (which make it look doubtful this item belongs in the lead anyway):

I cannot get the one source that would seem to indicate he is chair to load: I am on a slow internet connection, not at home, but please a) find better sourcing before re-adding this content, and b) based on the links above, it does not appear that this is material for the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

This mentions a different secretary-general: [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
This says the NAM does not have a permanent secretariat: [5] It sounds like Maduro chaired the 2016 meetings only, which were apparently a failure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
This makes it sound like Maduro chaired the 17th summit (which according to the sources above was a dud, so why add this to the lead?). [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Does the secretariat have any actual power or influence, was Maduro elected specifically after a deliberation or procedure; or is it just an honorary title of sorts that is given by turns to all member countries? Does he had any new duties that add to the ones he already had as head of state of Venezuela, or was it just a protocolar thing? Cambalachero (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I thought he really was the president of the NAM. If this isn't the case, there are several articles that need updating. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I cannot find anything of substance ... and nothing to back the text inserted ... but I am not home, and am on a slow connection. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
So, I found this, which indicates he was elected "Chair" at the 17th Summit: that would be the Summit that is mentioned above that no one attended. So, whatever the position is, it doesn't seem to rise to the level of importance to be included in the lead, and it is curious that it is proving to be impossible to find sources to verify this information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

If you (User:SandyGeorgia) questioned that NAM is the "largest group outside of the UN", have you read the lead section of Non-Aligned Movement article?

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is a forum of 120 developing world states that are not formally aligned with or against any major power bloc. After the United Nations, it is the largest grouping of states world-wide.

with two references from source, source also from
Then, If there is a doubt whether Nicolas Maduro is the current leader of NAM or not and is it proper enough to put his position in the lead section, don't you carefully check the Infobox of his article? It is clear there that Maduro is the Incumbent Secretary General of the Non-Aligned Movement who assumed office since 17 September 2016 replacing Hassan Rouhani. So, If the main Infobox clearly mentioned about his position (in NAM) without any dispute, then why there's no a single sentence about it in the main (lead) section? or if the information about his position as Secretary General of NAM is wrong, why no one remove it from Infobox?
Furthermore, I am also questioning that "President of Venezuela" section of the article only stressed widely about the negative sentiment in ""Dictator" charges" sub-section which sounds bias and unbalance without any other things related to his presidency, such as "Foreign policy" sub-section like mentioned in the article which is later removed after I added. — MusenInvincible (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
It sounds like you are considering Wikipedia infoboxes as reliable sources; I have still not located any good sourcing for this content. Have you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

───────────────It sounds like you are the owner (WP:OWN of the article by dictating what the article may say, which is opposing the core principle of Wikipedia (the free encyclopedia, that anyone can edit). Moreover, you did not pay attention to what I wrote above, "have you read the lead section of Non-Aligned Movement article?" If you have read it, then why you did not return my edit that "After the United Nations, it (NAM) is the largest grouping of states world-wide" with the sources that I have given.
Then, If you are still in doubt about Maduro as the Secretary-General of NAM, can you inform to me who are the leader of the organization after Hassan Rouhani? or can you give a good source that the position is vacant? Also, how can you ask me to give a reliable source to be put in a Wikipedia article when yourself do not believe that what is put in Wikipedia Infobox is reliable? Furthermore, the article is only emphasizing about stance of group nations supporting Incumbent Maduro and supporting opposition Guiado but ignoring that there are other group nations who clarify their positions as supporters of National Assembly and even being neutral in this dispute, therefore it is important to show the information of the stance of all these nations instead of hiding it. — MusenInvincible (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:CIRCULAR ShimonChai (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Would you please avoid personalizing discussions and respond with respect to sources? I have presented every source I can find, while you are talking about text that is in a Wikipedia article, but without giving sources for the text in this article. I have found no source that says Maduro was anything other than the chair of what sources seem to all consider a failed, scarcely attended summit: if there are other sources, please do present them. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The NAM website says, "The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is led by a Chair that rotates every three years during Summit Conferences. Since the XVII NAM Summit of Island of Margarita, held in September 2016, the Movement has been chaired by H.E. Mr. Nicolás Maduro Moros...."[7] No mention of whether Guaido has declared himself the de jure chair, or whether the NAM will recognize him. In any case, it's a real position and there is no reason not to mention it. TFD (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, TFD, for finally locating just what I have been saying: he was apparently (according to all other sources) the Chair (I can locate no such thing as "Secretary-General" which appears to be an inflation of term) of a summit, until the next summit. And it seems (from sources I can uncover) that the summit was a flop. So, now that you have a source, yes we should mention it, but I do not believe it rises to the level of significance to be included in the lead ... I am not sure where it should be added. It also appears, from other info I've seen elsewhere, that there is already a new chair, but I'm not clear on that-- I just raise that as it is unlikely it is an issue affecting Guaido. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Again, I think you (User:SandyGeorgia) are only concerning about Nicolas Maduro and NAM Secretary-General (or chairperson) problem which means he is the leader of NAM after Hassan Rouhani no matter the title he holds, However, you do not pay attention to what I wrote above, "have you read the lead section of Non-Aligned Movement article?" If you have read it, then why you did not "return my edit" to content article that "After the United Nations, it (NAM) is the largest grouping of states world-wide" with the sources that I have given. Furthermore, you are insisting that the article is only emphasizing about dualism stance of group nations supporting Incumbent Maduro or supporting opposition Guiado but ignoring that there are other group nations who clarify their positions as supporters of National Assembly and even being neutral in this dispute, therefore it is important to show the information of the stance of all these nations instead of hiding it. Do you read this or you reckless again, I'll wait for it. — MusenInvincible (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:CIRCULAR ShimonChai (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

NAM Chairperson summaryEdit

No reliable source indicating Maduro is "Secretary General" of NAM has been provided; other pages indicate there is no such thing, rather a Chairperson is chosen by acclamation for each Summit. The obnoxiously overlong infobox here already includes mention that Maduro was Chair of NAM's 17th Summit, as does a template at the bottom of this article (both of which give more prominence to this matter than would one sentence in the text).

The sub-article Presidency of Nicolás Maduro#Foreign policy has a summary of every source that has been provided. If anyone has other sources, please provide there. The sources do not give any indication that this text or this summit warrants further mention than it already has in this article: Maduro chaired a very poorly attended summit, which was widely criticized (from German to US sources and even Al Jazeera), and bringing that criticism of that event to this article doesn't seem to be one of the issues more worthy of due weight here.

MucenInvincible, if you want to continue discussion of NAM being the largest grouping of states in the world, please take that to the NAM article; it is inappropriate here. Maduro chaired a meeting that was attended by 10 to 15 countries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

As I predicted, you are being reckless again and did not read whole of my previous edit. But I'll make this simpler, can you answer these questions plainly (without pretty much text)
  • Whether the summit is bad or whatever, who is the leader of NAM during 2016-2019 anyway? (the largest grouping thing related with the position)
  • Do you believe that information on Infobox about Maduro-NAM is reliable or not? If not, why do you keep on questioning my sources while you did not do anything or challenge or remove it from the Infobox?
  • About nations' positions as the neutral and pro-National Assembly, will you return my edit that you've revert?
If you will not answer these questions well and directly, I think my claim about ownership of article is totally correct. So I don't waste any more leisure time with the "un-collaborative" user in the collaborative project of Wikipedia (that anyone can edit, NOT limited anyone to contribute) Closed. — MusenInvincible (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Was 2018 election really "considered" a "snap election"?Edit

Note c said: "Considered a snap election, the original electoral date was December 2018 but was pulled ahead to 22 April and then pushed back to 20 May.[17][18][19]". Does the Venezuelan Constitution or law really provide for a "snap election"? Some nations have laws which do, such as UK. America, for example, does not. If a general election had occurred in America in, say, May 2016, rather than November 2016, it would not have been labelled a "snap election", but instead an "illegal election", or a "coup", or a "fraud". For that matter, did the Venezuelan Constitution allow for a vote to form a "Constituent Assembly"? Could someone familiar with Venezuelan law or the Venezuelan Constitution address this matter? (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Jamez42:, I am not sure who wrote that text originally. (I think both are generally labeled "illegal" by sources, but I'm not sure what discussions went into choosing the terminology "snap".) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I vaguely recall that in UK law, the rules say that there must be an election within 5 years after the previous election. But, government can choose to have an election at any time prior to that 5-year time. This is probably what is meant by the term "snap election". But I can see how a biased Maduro-supporter might want to "regularize" the facts by labelling the election as being a "snap election". (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Sandy. Venezuelan law establishes that the only moments were a election may be called earlier is when the president dies, like it happened with Chávez, resigns or is dismissed (or "impeached") by the Congress, currently the National Assembly, like it happened with Carlos Andrés Pérez. Even if it was legal to summon an election earlier, the election was called by the Constituent Assembly, when the only legal body that can do so is the National Electoral Council (CNE in Spanish). Elections in Venezuela normally take place in the December of the last year of the presidential term, on the first or second Sunday of the month if I'm not mistaken. Since I haven't seen the term snap election been used that much, I don't know if it denotes a legitimate election; I think @ZiaLater: was the user that included the term. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I have never heard the term used for a presidential election before, but then I have never heard of a presidential election being called early. Probably best to avoid the term and just explain what happened. TFD (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of the legal background, it was an election called earlier than scheduled, so yes, it is a snap election (not "considered", is, as the sky is not "considered" to be blue). Cambalachero (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Cambalachero, I am not certain I understand all the nuance here, but I am gathering that by calling it a "snap election", which are legally accepted in some countries, we are conferring a legitimacy that is not intended. The Four Deuces, am I understanding correctly, and can this be solved by simply deleting the reference to "snap"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
For example, BBC and CNN and CNBC. VOA used the term in Venezuela; the question/nuance is whether the term infers a legitimacy intended or not, and the question is what the law in Venezuela allows. I think. According to Jamez42 (and my understanding), the election was not within the Constitution, so we shouldn't be using the term, and I think that is what IP poster is saying. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Your first few examples are not for Venezuela. According to the article snap election, the term was used for a presidential election in the Philippines' Snap Elections of 1986, otherwise all the examples are for parliamentary systems. In these cases the president or other head of states calls an election for the legislature, not for the head of state. I think that "early" presidential election is probably better. TFD (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The Four Deuces, sorry I didn't make it clear-- that was the point (that the first sources weren't about Venezuela); they were intended to show what a legit "snap" election is, and point out that I found only one reliable source (VOA) referring to Venezuela as such. I removed the word "snap" from our articles, which is the best I can suggest based on what I know so far. What Maduro did was not legit, and there's no real label that we can use, so best to use none. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2019Edit

change [nikoˈlas maˈduɾo ˈmoɾos] to [nikoˈlas maˈðuɾo ˈmoɾos]

This is because certain plosives are approximated intervocalically in Spanish, the "d" in Maduro is an example. (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  Already done NiciVampireHeart 11:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Biased pollesEdit

Consider adding a new poll from Hinterlaces, which showes that Maduros's support is not as low as shown in the article.

More information:

Thank you for the link! I've added the poll to the "public opinion" section.
Iamextremelygayokay (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater and Jamez42: could someone please add the text specifying Hinterlaces connection to the Maduro administration? I can't remember where to find it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Never mind; I found it (aptly titled section :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

2006 detention in New YorkEdit

I add the September 2006 regarding an incident involving Nicolas Maduro when he was trying to leave back home from the 61st UN General Assembly. It was mentioned in the earliest revisions back from 2009 but became missing in the current revisions. Anyone is welcome to correct the paragraph if its incorrect. --cyrfaw (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


This edit by Ballers19 claiming Guaido is Maduro's "successor" is not consistent with the sources. Maduro has not simply stepped down and handed over power to the Guaido--who declared himself to be president in a rally. Maduro is still in office, still controls the military, etc., even though there are a number of countries like the U.S. that recognize Guaido. I reverted. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Nicolás Maduro" page.