Open main menu

Talk:Second inauguration of Nicolás Maduro

Contents

unfocusedEdit

Please tighten up the article to be about the actual inauguration and its context, reactions, responses, etc. and not tertiary or tangential information like the economy.-~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 03:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that one reference to the economy that's mentioned in relation to the inauguration. How could I. Kingsif (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Well that was just the obvious issue and I wasn't intending anything at you personally, I didn't even know you added it....thank you though.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 04:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Haha, that was sarcasm, nothing taken. If there's any issues, please do bring them up specifically! Kingsif (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The only other thing I tagged was for copy editing because some of the prose seems a little wonky (no offense of course, not because of writing skill but just everything being added quickly, the compounded sources cause that), and I'm a little iffy on the image of the caricature protestor in Miami. It might be interpreted as POV although I did notice the page overall tries to be balanced, which is good. I'm not particularly opposed just pointing it out.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 04:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, please tag it for copy editing, I'm sure if you list it someone will come soon. Better to ask more people about the image, I think it's fine because it's there to demonstrate without comment, others might not like it. Kingsif (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Kingsif, thank you for your kind cooperation . I just have one more question that's a bit funny: Do you think the info box image should crop out the man next to Maduro with the rather glum expression, in case that might be interpreted as an anti-government cherrypick? I can't do it right now anyway but it is a strange photo when you look at his face.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 04:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I think that's a bodyguard who's supposed to look serious (and he's directly behind Maduro, it would be hard to crop it well). Kingsif (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, wow he looks like more like he's regretting every moment of his life lol. You're right though, just checking.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 04:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Looks like someone came to copy edit this :) --Robotxlabs (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

ZerpaEdit

Maduro would have been inaugurated by Supreme Court Justice Christian Zerpa: Can we get a clearer citation for that claim? Zerpa wasn't the chief justice (magistrado presidente?), so why would it have been him instead of Maikel Moreno? Moscow Mule (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Moreno is the President, but Zerpa was the magistrate of elections (see his eswiki page). That makes him the presiding official on overseeing fulfilment of elections, which I assumed included inaugurations. Will try to find sources for this later. Kingsif (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
My understanding was that he was one of the justices in the electoral chamber; the top dog there is Indira Alfonzo. Zerpa's a lot lower down the pecking order (in contrast to the impression given by some of the news coverage of his defection). The stories I've seen say he defected "because he didn't want to be a part of the inauguration", not that he didn't want to conduct it. Anyway. That claim is following in the article by three citations, two of which are firewalled and which I didn't access. Thought it might have been in one of them. Moscow Mule (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Moscow Mule: Having followed the news in the last days, my understanding is the same. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for clarification there then. Kingsif (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Open cabildoEdit

The open cabildo was a legal recourse from the time of the Spanish rule, some centuries ago. Cabildos do not exist anymore as government institutions, they are just the aged buildings that used to house them. Some modern events may call themselves an "open cabildo" to compare themselves with the historical ones, but that's just a marketing (or whatever) strategy. Simply explain, in modern words, what is the meeting called by Guaidó and what can we actually expect from it. Cambalachero (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Holy hostile rant, Batman! I'm aware of the open cabildo, I even explained (at ITN) almost exactly what you've written above, before you. But until more news comes out of the NA, we can't say exactly what Guaidó's meeting is. We can let the description stand for itself - a description which has been using modern words, comparing it to a town hall - and wait for news. Kingsif (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Cambalachero:@Kingsif: Actually, the cabildo abierto is a figure that still exists in the current Venezuelan constitution (Article 70) and they were also summoned during the 2017 protests. Even if it has both historic or political importance, it is still a perfectly modern term in Venezuela. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jamez42: thanks! Do you, perchance, have a copy of the constitution to add that info in the most accurate legal wording? Kingsif (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Sure thing, here's a digital copy in Spanish for the time being. I'll see if there's a translation in English. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Awesome! I'll stick it up on the open cabildo article. Kingsif (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Wikisource seems to translate it as "open forum", which if you ask me I think it is a pretty accurate translation. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jamez42: Yeah, I knew that the usage correlated with the American concept of the "town hall meeting" (which doesn't need to be in a town hall), didn't know if there were certain legal implications or precedents, though! Kingsif (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

QuotesEdit

Apparently its undue for there to be quotes from pro-maduro people but not undue for there to be quotes from anti-maduro people (of which there are many in the article). Lets not be selective about applying Wikipedia policy and not have one rule for pro-maduro opinion and another rule for anti-maduro opinion.95.153.48.2 (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Which are the "anti-Maduro" quotes? --Jamez42 (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
How about the quote "Venezuela is living under a dictatorship" and the litany of quotes in the response section?95.153.48.2 (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
None of them are as lengthy and it seems the quotes are mostly few words. The most biased one could be Macri's. --[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@95.153.48.2: --Jamez42 (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The quotes you have just readded are longer then the many of the ones I added. At least stop pretending you are anything other then a propagandist. Trying to cover your own bias is comparable to someone trying to cover up the Grand Canyon with a single handkerchief.95.153.48.2 (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@95.153.48.2: No need to be uncivil. I should also warn you that by now you probably have broken the three revert rule and remind you that I have repeatedly warned you in your talk page about possible disruptive editing. The blanking of your page and you reverts in other articles ([1][2]) give me the impression you're not editing constructively. Now, could you repeat what are the issues with the quotes? --Jamez42 (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Reread my original comment and try really hard to wrap your tiny mind around the meaning behind it.95.153.48.2 (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@95.153.48.2: Well, there goes nothing. Thank you for letting me study your edit behaviour! I hope you had a Happy New Year :) --Jamez42 (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Jamez42: I think your last revert ("Restoring to last stable version before the proxy and WP:SOCK's edits") was too sweeping. In an article about a presidential inauguration, surely a list of dignitaries (presidents, prime ministers...) in attendance is relevant? (And the fact that three of the presidents were Bolivia's, Cuba's and Nicaragua's is eloquent in itself.) Ditto the quote from the UNSG's spokesman. So, which am I: proxy or sock? Moscow Mule (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────@Moscow Mule: My revert was referring to the IP above. Because of the disruptive editing, it was likely that restoring the stable version before proceeding. That means you are neither; feel free to include all of the content you feel is relevant, but if possible I'd like to ask that the correct format of the references is included and to improve the neutrality given the case if it is needed. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Let me offer a constructive and peaceful solution to all this: someone, or multiple users, should give all the references a swift heuristic review for WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV anyway.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 19:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

NPOV and Biographies of Living Persons ViolationsEdit

Respectfully, this article is seriously needing a neutral point-of-view reform and is in deep danger of violating the rules surrounding biographies of living persons. Not only is the topic itself highly contentious, the sourcing used is continuously biased against the government. For example, the article uses the turnout rate of 25.8% and the source used is an article on a website run by Venezuelan opposition media, while not even mentioning the 46.07% official number. I understand these issues are controversial and both anti- and pro- government sources will of course say things and cite figures that benefit themselves, but it should be up to readers, not us, to decide who is correct.

This is not the only instance. Again: "It was also announced by the Constituent Assembly, which should not have had the power to do so.[9] The Constituent Assembly is a body created by Maduro as a substitute for the nation's actual legislative body, the National Assembly, since his party was in a minority.[10] Despite the opposition making up a majority of the government, Maduro does not allow them power, and has said that they need to "leave [him] alone to govern".[11]" This line is incredibly partisan and biased. Opposition claims should be allowed on the page, but so should government claims of the National Assembly no longer having constitutional-granted powers due to electoral disparities cited by Venezuela's supreme court. Furthermore, it claims that the Constituent Assembly was created by Maduro merely to usurp the legislature -- again, a claim with opposition citations and point-of-view, while Maduro claims it was created to bring the country together and create peace.

Again, here: "The main "illegitimate" contention to the inauguration was primarily based on the unusual election activity. This belief was declared by many countries worldwide. To Maduro being inaugurated, Argentine President Mauricio Macri said in a simple statement that "Venezuela is living under a dictatorship".[12]" Many countries also denounced intervention in Venezuela's domestic affairs and claimed the inauguration and elections were legitimate, yet there is no reference to any of them.

"Maduro's inauguration took place on 10 January 2019 outside the Supreme Court building in Caracas.[13] Traditionally, it would have happened in front of the Assembly building, an institution he ignores." The latter claim is politically biased, since again, the National Assembly from the government's point of view no longer has authority -- if opposition members or supporters feel he is "ignoring it," then the other point of view must be included as well.

So far, these are just a handful examples of pieces throughout the article which veer dangerously close to violating the rules on biographies of living persons which should especially refrain from being politically partisan or saying contentious, borderline libelous, things about a living person. The rest of the article also continues with this trend. "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported."

Thus, my main contentions with this article are as follows:

1.) It relies way too much on opposition claims and sources and does not make use of many third-party/independent sources. 2.) The claims that due make use of third-party sources, but are still negative, do not include the denials by Maduro which as per the BOLP rules must be included in the article. 3.) The article taken as a whole is set up in a way that is biased -- it includes responses by the National Assembly in its own section, yet almost no claims by the government, Maduro, or his regional/world allies.

I can add claims by the government/Maduro/allies and third-party sources while leaving the opposition claims in order to balance the article's point-of-view. However, if these are undone by later revisions, it will be marked as BLPWatch and POV, to ensure that neutrality is secured and that the article doesn't veer into libel territory. I'm in agreement with the editor here before that brought up neutrality issues.

Kind regards,

--Redratatoskr (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

For the time being I can't answer this properly, point by point, but I only wanted to mention that I'm almost sure that the article is unrelated to BLP, a policy created to protect individuals from libel or defamation. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@Redratatoskr: That’s a lot of text, I’m going to try and respond to all of it, based on having written or checked a lot of the article and striving for NPOV myself. We can then talk about if the reasoning something is phrased a certain way is good enough that we both (all when others ideally join discussion) think it won’t be interpreted as biased by most readers (I.e. not those with a strong sentiment either way, those readers we can’t help).
The other percentage of votes (46.07) isn’t mentioned because I’ve never seen a reliable source for it. Of course, that doesn’t mean we can’t say “The government claims there was x, whilst independent analysts say y”.
"It was also announced by the Constituent Assembly, which should not have had the power to do so.[9] The Constituent Assembly is a body created by Maduro as a substitute for the nation's actual legislative body, the National Assembly, since his party was in a minority.[10] Despite the opposition making up a majority of the government, Maduro does not allow them power, and has said that they need to "leave [him] alone to govern".[11]" I don’t think this is biased. 1. the source says that the Constituent Assembly doesn’t have the power to call an election, since they haven’t actually changed the 1999 Constitution yet (so, like, they shouldn’t have any power, legally) 2. Describing the inception of the CA, it’s a factual statement that gives some brief info, perhaps it could be reworded because I agree that being so short can sound accusatory when read. 3. I think your issue with the last sentence is that there’s a quote that paints Maduro badly? He said it, though, in probably a worse context than it’s actually presented in here. It’s also directly related to the section and the context of feuding Assemblies, so to just stick another quote in to even it up wouldn’t make sense.
"The main "illegitimate" contention to the inauguration was primarily based on the unusual election activity. This belief was declared by many countries worldwide. To Maduro being inaugurated, Argentine President Mauricio Macri said in a simple statement that "Venezuela is living under a dictatorship".[12]" Again, this is talking about why people thought the election was illegitimate, which caused the controversy over inauguration, which is the primary focus of the page. It wouldn’t give context to the page if we didn’t say it. For the practice of including all information, though, you’re right it would be ideal to mention that some countries just didn’t care (does anyone publicly announce that they think an election is legitimate? No, they keep quiet or they speak against it. Though there’s probably some responses from Maduro-supporting leaders after others said it was illegitimate)
"Maduro's inauguration took place on 10 January 2019 outside the Supreme Court building in Caracas.[13] Traditionally, it would have happened in front of the Assembly building, an institution he ignores." Your issue here is that the NA says Maduro is ignoring them, and the government view needs to be added... pretty sure Maduro would happily say he ignores them. Sure, they phrase it as ignoring the true legislative body and he phrases it as ignoring whiny children, but neither is specified. However, it could be better phrased. How about “Traditionally, it would have happened in front of the Assembly building; Maduro does not recognise the National Assembly and so it was not”?
I’m going to have to disagree with Jamez, since the article deals with opinions of living people, it is BLP. For multiple sides. I don’t think it’s violating it, because it uses reliable sources to report everything. The “opposition” media is, really, just independent media; most media has biases, but these media have less bias than the state media supporting Maduro. Though, if we use the BBC as neutral standard (as the wiki does), they do give airtime to both supporters and detractors of Maduro without comment (because BBC neutrality) and mention both election percentages - they have published editorials supporting ousting Maduro, but purely based on facts and testimony. From what you’ve quoted, the only thing missing would be denials of allegations - we should, therefore, make it explicitly clear that Maduro says his election wasn’t a sham, as much as that seems obvious. Has he denied anything else? Not much of the content of the page is about him, and BLP doesn’t cover the necessity to present his opinion on Guaidó (doing so might actually be a Guaidó BLP issue).
Also, the National Assembly has a responses section because the article is also largely about this! Most of its purpose is the internal conflict! It’s not a misrepresented reactions section, it’s its own thing. Or, I guess (with emphasis because it’s important): the article is about a controversial event, controversy is, by nature, negative towards the event.
That said, we should strive to make it neutral, though I fear you may still take issue purely because it will always have more negative than not. “A thing happened and people were okay with it” isn’t worthy of an article. This inauguration alone wouldn’t be worthy of an article. It’s the controversy, with the context of the aftermath it has led to, that makes it worthy of an article.
I’d like to see your proposals for adding supportive and more neutral information, to discuss, because of the above issue that you may inadvertently make the article into a vaguely pointless one if not giving due weight to “people didn’t like it so it sparked crisis”.
Awaiting your response! Also inviting @Jamez42: and anyone you can think of who might be interested to join the discussion. Kingsif (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Let's do our best to organize the points to resolve the NPOV dispute.
  1. "Of course, that doesn’t mean we can’t say “The government claims there was x, whilst independent analysts say y”." This solution to the turnout issue is agreeable to me only if we change "independent analysists" to "the opposition" or "opposition analysts/media", especially since every source I've seen for the turnout is pro-opposition, not neutral.
  2. In regards to the Constituent Assembly -- the sources used to say that it has no power is efecto cocuyo, the same opposition media which of course is neither third-party nor unbiased. This can be remedied either by including pro-government sources, or by removing all biased sources and including a third-party source, such as this Al Jazeera article:[3] It includes both pro and anti government claims. It also cites the Article used in the constitution to convene the assembly and its legal powers/authority.
  3. I suggest we also use the Al Jazeera article for claims surrounding why the CA was called. It includes a quote from Maduro's wife claiming the CA was convened to create peace and unity, while it also includes opposition claims that it was due to wanting to usurpt the NA.
  4. My only issue with the last quote isn't the quote itself "leave me alone," it's the phrase "Maduro does not allow them power," which is clearly going to depend on whether you think the CA is legitimate in its authority or not. It's too biased. It should instead say something along the lines of, "Maduro disputes their authortiy/legitimacy." That way, it's both accurate and neutral.
  5. We can leave the Macri quote only if you allow me to include a counter-quote or reference to one other world leader such as Evo Morales, Raul Castro, etc. in support of Maduro and the legitimacy of the election.
  6. " How about “Traditionally, it would have happened in front of the Assembly building; Maduro does not recognise the National Assembly and so it was not”?" This is perfectly acceptable to me.
  7. Finally, I agree with you that BLP counts. It clearly says on the BLP page that any information on any Wiki page about someone who is living must be protected under BLP rules. Although, I strongly disagree with "The “opposition” media is, really, just independent media; most media has biases, but these media have less bias than the state media supporting Maduro." It is not. Opposition media, as government media, is politically partisan or else it wouldn't be opposition media. True independent media, such as the Al Jazeera article I mentioned, references both points of view. Also, I should make it clear -- I myself absolutely do not believe the election was illegitimate.
  8. In terms of the Guaidó issue, Maduro and the government certainly have their own view of his call to assume the presidency. I will only accept that the article is neutral if I'm allowed to include counter-claims by Maduro/the government to balance out the National Assembly section. I think that's only fair -- and BLP necessitates living persons' refutations of accusations on pages concerning them in any way, even if the page is not their own page.
  9. Finally, I do agree that controversy is what makes the article important, but it doesn't have to be negative -- meaning only catering to the opposition -- in order for it to meet noteriety standards. If anything, adding counter-claims by Maduro would definitely make the article more interesting while also making it more neutral as a whole.
  10. I look forward to your response on this matter so that we can implement the changes to make the article neutral and remove the NPOV tag! --Redratatoskr (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, I think we can definitely have some agreements:
  1. Perhaps "pro-opposition", not just opposition? That's fine with me.
  2. Will happily use Al Jazeera as a source. However, sometimes it isn't neutral - I think I used it as one of the sources and it seemed somewhat Maduro-supportive in tone. Generally, though, Al Jazeera is BBC-supported so should be fine. It's at the user's discretion to see if certain correspondents have a bias tone.
  3. See 2
  4. Hmm, well Maduro doesn't allow them power even though they are elected, which are facts no matter what. "Maduro does not allow them power, because he disputes their authority" perhaps?
  5. Another quote should be fine, if it's about legitimacy (presumably a world leader saying "I think it's legitimate"?)
  6. Great
  7. Fair enough
  8. I'll be happy to review a draft of anything you propose to level this, here or on the main page (I trust you won't go too wild, haha)
  9. Thanks for the discussion! Kingsif (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed changesEdit

I will probably have to ask again about what was reached in the discussion of the previous section, in case I have missed . However, I still wanted to address some issues. First, why is Efeco Cocuyo not considered "third-party nor unbiased"? Only because it is a national outlet that is not pro government? I have to ask this because it worries me that from now on we consider all national media not owned or controlled by the government as biased and thus unreliable. While the media in Venezuela is undergoing a difficult situation, there are many outlets that do an excellent job reporting on the situation; if you want recommendations, I can mention El Estímulo, El Pitazo and yes, Efecto Cocuyo, which I should mention won a Gabriel García Márquez Award last year.

Second, Efecto Cocuyo isn't the only source that disputes the legitimacy and powers of the Constituent Assembly. Venezuela has already had 26 constituent assemblies before and this is the first time in its republican history that it decides to draft laws, disolve districts, dismiss officials or summon elections. Only considering the media outlets per se would be throwing away the arguments of scholars, legal experts and deputies. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Will add my voice to say that I often rely on Efecto Cocuyo as the reliable, neutral source of news in Venezuela. Many people just want honesty.
It's comparable to The Guardian in the UK: sure it's run by liberal people, but it is known as neutral and honest even if that's against personal interests sometimes. Kingsif (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Second inauguration of Nicolás Maduro" page.