Talk:Juan Guaidó/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Page protection

• A lot of edits just adding nonsense or other unnecessary/bad/opinion info from IPs and new accounts. I see it's been requested, how long until it's protected? Kingsif (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• A few hours, I see. Kingsif (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2019

After what he and others described as the "illegitimate" inauguration of Maduro on 10 January 2019, Guaidó announced he would challenge Maduro's claim and held a rally the following day, where the National Assembly, currently in contempt, announced he had assumed office as President and they would continue to plan to remove Maduro, contributing to the Presidential crisis. Guaidó's ascension was supported most prominently by the Organization of American States.[14][15][16] Sergioherher (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

What are you requesting? Kingsif (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sergioherher: are you requesting an edit? Kingsif (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Arrested

Hi @LXM Volo, Stalin990, MaoGo, GoodDay, and Freddy eduardo: despite he have not claimed to be president, he have been arrested. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

He's been arrested? the situation is getting nuttier by the day. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

He has now been released. [1] --MaoGo (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

There's a need for discussing some contents of the article

I won't procedure the second revert, but it seems edit war is going to be started again, if there is no proper discussion. Sænmōsà^{I will find a way or make one.} 05:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The case is that Keith-264 deleted some contents, and then I reverted him, giving a BBC source, which is already in the article, but he reverted my revert by calling the source "biased", and it makes me confused. Sænmōsà^{I will find a way or make one.} 05:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sanmosa: Info has been placed back. BBC is a reliable source. Thank you.----ZiaLater (talk) 06:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

ZiaLaterNoted. Sænmōsà^{I will find a way or make one.} 06:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Vice President

Guaidó has not sworn any member of his government, much less the Vice President, therefore, it must be eliminated that William Dávila occupies that position.--LuisZ9 (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Acting

Hi

Why do you have removed acting from the infobox? Also, because the National Assembly does not claim to have ousted Maduro after a coup or a revolution, so Guaidó began retroactively or automaticely after the end of Maduro's term in 10 January. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, for now the position is disputed, and both men claim to be the current President - that isn't to make a political point, but Guaido only declared himself President today. Culloty82 (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

But we should add a footnote to clarifie the fact that the NA claims that Maduro's term ended on 10 January. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Kosovo

I would just like to inform fellow Wikipedians that Kosovo has also now recognised Juan Guaidó as the Interim President of Venezuela. The Minister of Foreign Affairs for Kosovo, Behgjet Pacolli, announced this following the United States' newly found stance on the situation. Here is the source: https://twitter.com/pacollibehgjet/status/1088173771687714816 ArbDardh (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)ArbDardh

Update: Kosovo has been altered to green on the map accordingly. Thank you Tomasz Rolbiecki! ArbDardh (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)ArbDardh

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2019

Change 'President of Venezuela' to 'President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela' because that is the country's full official name. Ballers19 (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, no. Venezuela is the short name, and the article is President of Venezuela. Kingsif (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 1 on 23 January 2019

It is not confirmed that Juan Guaidó has named William Davila as vice president. Please remove this information. Zurdus (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Removed, couldn't find a source. Kingsif (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Support by the EU

Is it safe to assume that the EU recognises Guaidó as president?

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/01/23/declaration-by-the-high-representative-on-behalf-of-the-european-union-on-latest-developments-in-venezuela/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.195.98.52 (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Guaidó

an IPA has been added, is this correct? In my version of Spanish, which I'm not saying Guaidó necessarily uses, it would be guy-ee-DOH because there's no ¨ over the u. Is there official word? Kingsif (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Where is the ee from? Surely the ai is pronounced like hay, making guyDOH? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Because there's no ¨ (i.e. ü) unifying the vowels into one syllable - so Gua-i-DO, guy-ee-DOH? Reports have both guy-ee-DOH and guy-DOH, from English and Spanish speakers both. Kingsif (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Guaidó in IPA is [ɡwaiˈðo]. See omniglot.com/writing/spanish.htm. It is "gu = [g] before i or e, [gw] elsewhere" and "gü only appears before i or e". Gaidó in IPA would be [ɡaiˈðo]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.132.83 (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Plug Guaidó into fonemolabs.com/transcriptor.html or easypronunciation.com/en/spanish-phonetic-transcription-converter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.132.83 (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the shifty sources and ...educational website? Not going to go to those, thanks. Those are technical aspects of Spanish that, growing up speaking the language, I guess I never had to see written in such a mathematical manner. But /thanks for assuming I don't know Spanish/. Kingsif (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The Spanish pronunciation is [xwaŋ ɡwai̯ˈðo]. <uai> is a triphthong composed of [u], [a] and [i]. If it was to be pronounced [ɡai̯ˈðo], then it would be spelled "Gaidó". --Nomedizas (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

long discussion

(There was discussion above) You may be right, but that would have to be a different dialect to mine. There's also a video with an expert pronouncing it guy-DOH, so you're going to have to show some evidence of how Guaidó wants his name pronounced to convince me. Kingsif (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC) Nomedizas is right. "Guaidó" is not a foreign word to Spanish speakers, and it is extremely unlikely that he would like it pronounced differently than it is spelled. Unlike English, Spanish does not have spelling exceptions among native names. That is, the U must be pronounced. Where is this video? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agihard (talk • contribs) 01:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC) The link to the BBC site that Kingsif gave in the edit summary is the pronunciation in English. Here is an example where "Guaidó" is pronounced in Spanish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND0hE0wkARw. BTW the fact that <gu> in "guerra" and "pingüino" are not pronounced the same is not because of dialects or varieties, but because of the orthography itself --Nomedizas (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC) As above, I speak Spanish. And I would, naturally, pronounce it guy-ee-DOH. Hence I assume a different dialect - Spanish definitely has pronunciation differences, if not spelling ones. (You know, I do know why there's a difference between guerra and pingüino, in fact, I was using that exact orthographic reason to support my point). I'm going to move this to the other discussion above, and will default to you guys, who I'm assuming are Venezuelan if you know for certain? Kingsif (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC) Well, if you speak Spanish, then why did you refer to an English source instead of a Spanish one? And I suppose you pronounce "Uruguay" and "Paraguay" as [uɾuˈɡai̯] and [paɾaˈɡai̯] as well? --Nomedizas (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC) I do believe you're probably right, but I'd be happier if your comments didn't address me like an idiot. You assumed I didn't speak Spanish and wrote things that would be patronizing even if I didn't speak Spanish, and which are downright offensive given that I do. Now you accuse me of not speaking Spanish? I used the BBC because it's the most reliable source out there, and perhaps because it came up pretty high on a google search for "venezuela noticias". No, I say them using "guay" as that word is pronounced, which is a completely separate word not related to my natural instinct when reading "Guaidó". Could you be a little less rude and AGF here? Seriously, your last comment was not productive at all and made literally just to mock me. Kingsif (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC) Sorry but the very first person who was patronizing in this case is the one who said "so you're going to have to show some evidence of how Guaidó wants his name pronounced to convince me". --Nomedizas (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC) That's not patronising, that's literally just asking for a reliable source to back up a claim - I had a reliable source (the BBC) saying something different, so you needed a source in support. That's standard practice on Wikipedia, you must have sat on a hornet if you think that was an attempt at patronization. Kingsif (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC) Then when did other people and me state that you don't know Spanish? We were just stating the facts. Isn't it also a standard practice on Wikipedia? --Nomedizas (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC) Saying "well if you speak Spanish then why..." is an idiom often taken to assume that you believe the person is lying. I know you were stating facts, but the tone wasn't very welcoming. Kingsif (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC) No I was curious and we didn't necessarily think that you do or do not speak the language. And yeah if you speak Spanish, then why did you give an English source instead? --Nomedizas (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC) It did give off a negative tone - I used the English cource because BBC is a very reliable source, and it was one of the top links on google. Kingsif (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC) Yes BBC is a very reliable source, but that video is in English. --Nomedizas (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC) − The first mention of Guaido in this video pronounces the U, please listen carefully to it. Diaeresis is only needed for "gue" and "gui". see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_orthography. In "gua", and "guo" U is pronounced without resorting to diaresis . Nomedizas' phonetic spelling is 100% correct. Thanks for talking to me like I'm a moron, it really makes me want to listen to you. As does your ability to sign your posts. (Sarcasm) Kingsif (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC) Please re-read all the comments again tomorrow and reconsider whether anyone was accusing anyone else of being a moron or only trying to correct an error. The tone of all your comments from the start was very patronizing, as if you were speaking not just to someone who didn't speak Spanish, but someone who didn't grasp the concept of language. You still are, with this very comment; though it does seem well-meaning, so I will assume you were just trying to do good and couldn't recognize the tone your comments were taking. But you have left me feeling insulted either way. Kingsif (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nomedizas: @Agihard: Oh hey, did you guys want me to add the correct IPA to the page? Kingsif (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Yes, of course, but do you? --Nomedizas (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I assume you're right, I had already asked about pronunciation before because I'm not from Venezuela, I couldn't be sure. Kingsif (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nomedizas: 'maɾkez or 'maɾkeθ? (I would use the latter, I assume the former, however) Kingsif (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Using the system on Help:IPA/Spanish, the transcription will be [xwaŋ xeˈɾaɾðo ɣwai̯ˈðo ˈmaɾkes], because:

• /d/ between vowels or after consonants (except n and l) is pronounced [ð].
• /g/ between vowels or after consonants (except n) is pronounced [ɣ].
• [θ] is the pronunciation of <c, z> in northern and central Spain. In America, <c, z> are generally pronounced [s]. --Nomedizas (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Please correct it, using Nomedizas' phonetic spelling, and forgive my unfamiliarity with Wikipedia conventions. I do not consider myself exceptional in that I do not aim to insult anyone who is not expert in all Spanish spelling conventions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agihard (talk • contribs) 02:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2019

Juan Guaido is now more than the "Federal Deputy of Vargas" He is now the "INTERIM PRESIDENT OF VENEZUELA" Please change 'Federal Deputy' to 'President of Venezuela' Ballers19 (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• The page already says President. Infoboxes always list every office someone has held, it's not just a current status. Kingsif (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Political symbols

There's been a question over the little symbols in the infobox, pinging @Nice4What: to contribute, thanks for bringing it up! The Spanish Wikipedia has used these symbols, and I feel it helps distinguish the level of the role. It's also quite nice looking. I have seen other politicians for different countries on English Wikipedia do something similar (I can't remember off the top of my head, but it was definitely there making me think it was an accepted thing), but if this isn't standard then I don't mind, removal would be appropriate. Kingsif (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I feel like it'd create a precedent, and we'd have to add it to all current heads of state and government. Plus, I feel the symbols are distracting and add nothing of value (though they look nice). Nice4What (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I get your points, I'm happy for them to be left off the article.

If anyone wants to add to the discussion, feel free. No action at this time. Kingsif (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Political views?

The page for Mr Guaido has no political views listed, which is uncustomary for a page on a politician, especially for one of such stature as Mr Guaido. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.200.90.60 (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I added to the description of his party that it is socialist. But AFAIK he has no specific policies other than replacing Maduro. TFD (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 January 2019

At the end of the first paragraph under the subhead "Activism," please change "which Chavez won" to "which Chavez lost." Sources: Wikipedia article "2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum," an N.Y Times story https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/americas/03venezuela.html Peter Riley (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 05:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit 2 request on 24 January 2019

Panama also recognizes Juan Guaidó as president of Venezuela - source: https://impresa.prensa.com/panorama/Juan-Guaido-proclama-presidente-America_0_5220977956.html 163.209.227.50 (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

One-sided coverage of a de facto coup attempt

Without getting into the merits of either of the two competing claims for the presidency, I will note that the Guaidó claim of "interim presidency" has been rejected by Cuba and Bolivia, and he has been declined to be recognized by Uruguay, Mexico, Spain, and Portugal. There should be coverage not only of the countries recognizing the claim, but those declining to recognize the claim. Obviously, the situation will become more clear in coming weeks, one way or the other, but WP should not be in the place of calling the "winner" of disputed elections or coup attempts. Carrite (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, should be mentioned. However, edit wars spring up when trying to do that. Now the page protection is higher, we can probably re-add info and hopefully won't awaken fighting. Kingsif (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be ashamed for supporting regime change in Venezuela

It's amazing how wikipedia is converted into a cog of the USA imperialistic propaganda. Maduro is the legal elected president of Venezuela, not some USA puppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.13.46 (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC) — 213.249.13.46 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC).

Wrong, Maduro banned many politicians from running against him so he would win, not to mention he oversees the CNE in his country. Therefore, it was fraud and not transparent/free. He also continued to change the date of the election for his purposes. Under Article 233 in the Venezuelan Constitution, if there is an usurper in the Presidency of Venezuela, the President of the National Assembly is to TEMPORARILY become President and hold new elections. Maduro stole the last election and democratic nations around the world called the election fraudulent (which it was). You should also know that Guaidó is supported by DEMOCRACIES worldwide such as USA, Canada, Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, and many others. While Maduro is supported by AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES around the world such as Cuba, Russia, Iran, China, Turkey, and others. Maduro also has the police force on his side because he has the ability to provide them with food, money, and security. Once those resources are gone, Maduro will be completely isolated. He jails his opponents and has the police and army oppress anyone who speaks out against him. Leaving dozens dead or in jail. Something that a DICTATOR would do.

Can you see who is the rightful President yet? JUAN GUAIDÓ

It legally is not Maduro and his criminal regime who have starved their people, mismanaged the oil sector, and refused to fix inflation and the regional immigration crisis. Nicolas Maduro is a DICTATOR, and that is a fact. He does not believe in democracy as he says he does, he desires power for his own safety and ignorance, just like dictators do. His way of socialism has brought failures all over Venezuela because he imply does not know how to govern. Millions of Venezuelans are living in poverty and dying because of a severe shortage of food and medicine, but yet, his regime says there is NO PROBLEM and they simply ignore trying to solve the all of the crises that are in that country. The United States, and dozens of other countries, are just trying to restore democracy that has been destroyed in Venezuela by the regime. Juan Guiadó is the Interim President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and Maduro and his regime are just gang members who happen to have the temporary backing of the armed forces. They will not be recognized by the democratic world, as Maduro's government is AUTHORITARIAN, and he is (was) a DICTATOR.

The free world is with Juan Guaidó as the Interim President and millions of Venezuelan people, as they desperate are trying to return their country back to democracy and Constitutional order. Ballers19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballers19 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Presidency Expiration Date Tense Update

Under the section "Venezuelan National Assembly" subsection "President of the National Assembly", please change "...his presidential term, set to expire on 10 January 2019, officiating an eight-point..." to "...his presidential term, which expired on 10 January 2019, officiating an eight-point...", for that date has now past and should hence be in the past tense to avoid readers' confusion. Ashleybcrowley (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Updated. Kingsif (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Article is far from trying to seek being objective

Guaidó doesn't have any practical power in Venezuela. He doesn't act as a incumbent President, he doesn't have executive power and no institution in Venezuela apart from the Asamblea Nacional has recognized him. As much as he is recognized by US and right-wing Latin American countries, the constitutional or legality of his naming is disputed. Also, Russia, Turkey and some other countries doesn't recognize him. Uruguay and Mexico neither (that aren't anti-american countries) although they don't take position for Maduro neither. EU hasn't taken position, much less the UN that is generally what is taken as official. The introduction doesn't reflect this and don't think that a small "disputed" under his name on the sidebar is enough. I think is dangerous that Wikipedia reflects as official whatever the US Government thinks is official, while the true is that this situation is a unclear institutional mess and for now the only clear is that Maduro have the power independent of whatever external Government thinks, whether he is legitimate or not (and also, whether the juridical argument of Guaidó is legitimate/legal or not too). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4ndr5791 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC) — 4ndr5791 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC).

Removed stuff from the article:

Nations recognizing Guaidó as acting president
  Venezuela
  Recognize Guaidó
  Recognize Maduro

The above map is useless: it compares apples with oranges, and have false captions.

First of all: NO EU state have "Recognized Guaidó as acting president of Venezuela".

NONE.

What the EU has done, is to recognise Guaidó as president of the National Assembly of Venezuela. See

• https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/01/23/declaration-by-the-high-representative-on-behalf-of-the-european-union-on-latest-developments-in-venezuela/

And Sweden , Denmark and UK have supported this statement:

• "The Latest: Sweden, Denmark back Venezuela opposition leader". The New Zealand Herald. 2019-01-24. ISSN 1170-0777. Retrieved 2019-01-24.</ref>
• "UK supports Venezuela's Guaido as National Assembly head - PM May's spokesman". Thomson Reuters Foundation. 2019-01-24. Retrieved 2019-01-24. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

It is basically like recognising Nancy Pelosi as speaker of US House of Representatives, is NOT the same as recognising her as POTUS. Huldra (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there's a better map being made by others. If you removed all the other stuff, basically censoring that anything is happening in Venezuela, though, I'd advise you to rethink that. Kingsif (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is Margot Wallström tweet. And you must be completely unfamiliar with Scandinavian politicks if you think that a Scandinavian politician would support Guaidó, who is NOT elected as president of Venezuela...as president of Venezuela!! That.just.will.not.happen, Huldra (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC) (and yes: I understand both Danish and Swedish, and read local news. That Denmark and Sweden have recognised Guaidó as 'president of Venezuela' would come as a complete surprise to all Danes and Swedes!)

We should add the EU statement that it recognise Guaidó as leader of the National Assembly of Venezuela; we don't need separate statement for Sweden, Denmark, UK (they are all ..presently..in the EU) Huldra (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I literally agreed with you, dude. I'd appreciate if you didn't use personal attacks or patronizingly try to lecture me, both are completely uncalled for. And, having checked the edit history, you weren't the one who deleted a bunch of other stuff, so no issue here. Of course, I will also recommend that your comments get less passionate, or other users might not want to read them. Kingsif (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not a "dude" (unless you call females for that), Secondly, pardon my feelings, but I seriously don't like it when something is plain false on Wikipedia. Thirdly...I cannot find where Panama recognised Guaidó as interim President (of Venezuela)? I'm not saying they didn't...just could someone please point out the article/statement for me? Huldra (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I do call females "dude", yes, but if you don't like it, I won't. If you feel that strongly, maybe have a good cup of tea before writing things - if you come off as too passionate, other editors might dismiss your comments. Do you speak Spanish? this source is about Panama, but it is in Spanish. Kingsif (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

No, I dont like being called a "dude". And I made my first cup of tea just before I start editing (as I always do). And I think we have reason to be upset, when completely false info is in an article which have a 6-digit number of views...pr day. My 2 cents: People should be upset about that, not any editors style on the talk page.

Thanks for the article, I'll add it, as presently none? of the articles mention Panama. (I used to speak/read a tiny bit Spanish..took the equivalent of English O-level Spanish..but that was many, many decades ago... ) Huldra (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Then I'll abstain. Someone else is trying to make a more accurate map (none of Europe is on it), when it's done I'll add it. Kingsif (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, but please bring the map here, first, so we can discuss it, Huldra (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 January 2019

Remove 'Disputed with Nicolas Maduro' located under 'Proclaimed Interim President of Venezuela'

It s already stated, having it stated there is not necessary.

Also, change 'Proclaimed Interim President of Venezuela' to just 'Interim President of Venezuela' Ballers19 (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Kinda agree, kinda don't want to ignite potential war. Gonna leave this one open for someone braver. Kingsif (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This article is being edited dozens of times per day. Any change made based on this request will be overwritten almost immediately. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request2 on 25 January 2019

Remove "proclaimed' Ballers19 (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

 According to the news report these last 24 hours, he is in hiding (see eg Venezuela 'interim president' is in hiding — despite US backing — and appears to be failing one of his own 3 tests for securing power) ...then it is completely absurd that this page claims that he is "acting president", Huldra (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Then why are more recent reports showing him talking to people? Kingsif (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to delete the "Acting?" section

It's literally being used as a forum for anyone who doesn't support Guaidó, and it's now massive. I suggest it gets removed on the basis of NOT A FORUM, and let the IPs air their grievances somewhere else. Preferably not on Wikipedia. Kingsif (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you referencing multiple talk page sections above? I support aggressive archiving of past sections on this page, including all the protected edit requests, and the multiple "Acting" sections (but not removal). "Interim" is the correct term for what the constitution of Venezuela makes Guaido while free elections are pending. Some of the IPs seem to be trolling. And ... My suggestion is that some of these editors go over and read the Spanish Wikipedia article; they don't seem to be having a very hard time with this. One footnote does the trick-- both Maduro and Guaidó have claims to the presidency. That may be hard for people who live in true democracy to understand, but for now, it is the situation in Venezuela, and the Spanish Wikipedia handles it just fine by calling them both President, and attaching a "legitimacy disputed" note to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for shortening span of archive. Re. the Spanish Wikipedia article... isn't that still completely locked? That's probably the cause for stability. And, to converse freely, I also think it's probably not hard for people in democracy to understand, more people under certain regimes made to look like democracy, because they're less likely to understand the political machine. Of course, twice recently the UK's leadership has been challenged, and a quiet vote got that sorted, so maybe. Kingsif (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah ha, you are correct-- the Spanish article is locked. Anyway, yes, this talk page could use some aggressive archiving, which I support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request3 on 25 January 2019

The Organization of American States doesn't recognize Guaidó, there's no resolution approved as you can see here. Just Secretary General Almagro expressed his support on Twitter. There was a vote session on Thursday 24, 16 votes of 18 necessary to approve resolution recognizing Guaidó as president. Ref in Spanish I request to change in the introduction "His claim has been recognized by the Secretary General of the Organization of American States" instead of "His claim has been recognized by the Organization of American States" -Frodar (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Many sources, including most member nations of the OAS, acknowledge that Almagro was speaking on behalf of the OAS. Kingsif (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The vote session doesn't say that, just 16 of 35 member nations of the OAS would agree with Almagro, the majority would be 18. That contradicts your statement about "most members". I'm giving here the sources, there's no resolution approved. I think it's pretty evident Almagro doesn't spoke for the 35. -Frodar (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done: The article currently says he is rejected by OAS as a whole Danski454 (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

That wording is confusing, and needs to be fixed. The OAS rejected Maduro's legitimacy earlier on [2] ... even though they did not endorse Gauido. In other words, the OAS does not endorse either, so our text is lopsided. I recommend resolving this by taking the OAS out of the lead, and developing the text in the body of the article, since it's complicated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the wording is not the best, so I reiterate my request to replace it with the recognition of the Secretary General of the OAS. It's the only thing that counts as fact, that and the recognition (not expressed in a joint official document) of 16 of the 35 members of the OAS, but the latter seems to me a bit long for the lead. -Frodar (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Frodar, I am going to start on this now. I plan to remove mention of OAS from the lead, and develop the entire thing in the body of the article. Then we might talk about what could be said in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Frodar is this satisfactory? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it seems good to me. I take this opportunity to notice that the last name is misspelled twice, like "Gauidó", in the OAS recognition section and in the notes. -Frodar (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, will fix! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Disinformation in Wikipedia

The introduction is clearly biased and misrepresents the facts. In addition, it contains at least one outright lie: Guaido has NOT been recognized as President of Venezuela by the OAS. The US-led attempt in this direction failed. The majority of OAS countries did not support it. It was the current secretary general of the OAS, Luis Almagro, who immediately recognized Guaido as "President", parroting the US government. Mr. Almagro, however, is not the OAS. This is one more example of disinformation, i.e., false information spread deliberately to deceive, in an Wikipedia entry on current or recent political events worldwide. -- Niemandsbucht 12:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Niemandsbucht: Please provide sources for your claims and then edit the article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Koavf:, I see that this section is directly related to the edit request that I made and that is still unanswered. The source is in my request, the OAS failed to approve any resolution recognizing Juan Guaidó and therefore there is not one published on its website of resolutions issued. -Frodar (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, already had been modified. -Frodar (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Jennifer Cyr

Why is this sentence here?

He also contributed to the research of Jennifer Cyr at the University of Arizona in 2017.

It reads like a promotion of Cyr, and is cited to Cyr rather than a third-party independent source; what is the significance? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I added that because it's a thing he did related to the AN. It could be expanded to say it was research on the working conditions of Latin American politicians and he was one of few Venezuelans who contributed to it; and it's a peer-reviewed published book, so I don't think just saying he was involved when he's named in there needs an external source. I doubt there is an external source. It doesn't sound like a promotion, though, academic works often get referred to with author's names instead of the usual long titles. Kingsif (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, adding a few words of context will help it not read as promotional ... it reads now like the sort of things one finds all the time in medical articles, where researchers are just trying to get their name in the article, and the reader doesn't understand, in this case, why it's there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Much better, thank you; I reduced some repitition and redundancy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Acting?

From an anonymous antipodal. 2019/01/27

Like others here, I was a bit startled by the Wikipedian declaration (or was it an announcement?) of the swearing in of the new Venezuelan President. It was with a now continuing dismay to find that none of the mainstream media outlets are carrying stories about the ceremony, which I understand must have happened behind closed doors, presumably underground, probably in some kind of bunker; all witnesses now sequestered for safety. It's of course very reassuring to know that Wikipedia is maintained in such a way that we can really trust what we see. I guess that's why the larger donations and endownents are pouring in. Meanwhile, needing some bitters for an aperitif, but having none, I found something incredibly ironic in their place, regarding bias in contributions

'…when editing Wikipedia, make sure you "Don't Care".'

..wow

Seriously though, what shape is the flat Earth from whence this 'Acting President' nonsense came from? FFS. Wikipedia is, sadly, now obviously well past the crest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.207.182 (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I see my name mentioned, but there seems to be no relevant context. Flattered you stalked me.

FYI, there's a photo of Guaidó been sworn in on Commons, so I don't think it was in a secret bunker or whatever your sarcastic theory was. Kingsif (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Ummm, is clicking on an edit contributor's uname, and reading what they, themselves, have rather publicly expounded, stalking? Meanwhile, is standing and affirming, in a plaza with admittedly thousands of supporters, the same as swearing a solemn oath before a Supreme Court judge? Personally, I agree it doesn't look like the incumbent can hold on much longer, at this rate, but calling it before it's happened, I mean really, wtf is that if not one of the highest forms of bias? Anyway, I've stripped the name shame, and apologise for what I did there.

That was largely sarcasm, dude. If you read my replies and look at my edits, you'll note that I am all for finding neutrality. I don't know what to say about people completely discounting Guaidó - it's reasonable to question is this guy really President, but phrasing it so outlandishly (and some users have even been removing that he's in the National Assembly) does make those making those arguments seem blinded by anti-Guaidó bias. You don't seem like that, and I did read your initial comment as at least a bit of fun. If we strip it back, the facts of the matter are that, yeah, Guaidó did take an oath, albeit unconventional, and has been elected to a seat of power (Pres. AN) that is allowed to interpret the Constitution. Equally, the legitimate, i.e. bipartisan, Supreme Court has given their approval and recognition of him. Of course, Maduro was still elected - even if a good portion of the world and what seems to be a large amount of Venezuela believe he rigged it. But hey, that's arguably how Trump got in! Don't you love politics? Kingsif (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

It's just that to swear or affirm an oath or declaration is/requires a juridical act. They need to do so before a SC judge. We can't just delegitimise another State's sovereign constitutional arrangements like this. I hate to say it, never imagined I would, but what we've got going on here is imperialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.207.182 (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC) ___

(From Dan Nissenbaum, Jan 25 8:00 EDT) - I request that somebody change the biased opening section that lists a number of countries recognizing Guaido, but fails to list the countries recognizing Maduro. From https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-maduro-guaido/guaido-versus-maduro-who-backs-venezuelas-two-presidents-idUSKCN1PI1M5 - these countries include Turkey, Bolivia, Cuba, Russia and China. India has also not declared recognition for Guaido (https://www.valdostadailytimes.com/news/military/the-latest-india-closely-following-crisis-in-venezuela/article_9f70e62a-104b-58d6-8b4c-3a2b3bba9b97.html). These countries that have not recognized Guaido represent more than 1/3rd of the world's population. Please do the right thing and return a semblance of objectivity to the opening section. I would do it myself, but the page has been locked because I do not have 500 edits.

___

This article shows that wikipedia is now not at all an authentic source of knowledge and information. A lie does not become truth because the rich right wing North American rulers (yes - I see you Mr.Trudeau) say so.

If an article is going to be locked, then those with editing rights need to start acting more responsibly. Someone doesn't become an "acting president" or "interim president" just by saying that's what they are in violation of the constitution. Otherwise it's called a coup. Likewise, other countries don't get to decide who is or isn't the president. This has nothing to do with whether you like Maduro or don't or like Guaido or don't. Wikipedia cannot call Guaido the acting or interim president ("disputed" or otherwise) and call itself an encyclopedia. There is no such thing as an "incumbent" fake president. Pandagoestomars (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Is that all it takes to become President? Fine. I, El Capitam Stank, am now the President of the United States. I'll need a wiki page and the POTUS one updated and locked to prevent anyone with any sense from changing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Capitan Stank (talk • contribs) 22:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Do you have source who said that he became Acting president? The sources said only that he is ready to become president. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@LXM Volo, Stalin990, and Kingsif:--Panam2014 (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Several sources, littered throughout the related articles. There's also the recognition of Guaidó as president by other governments, who are talking to him and not Maduro, so he is literally acting in the role. Kingsif (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif:Not yet. The Guardian have edited it article. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The Guardian don't edit articles. That's not the only source, as I just said. Sources like this make the situation clear. Kingsif (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: The title of the Guardian have been changed. The others source said only that he is assuming the power not that he have been appointed interim president. And in his Twitter account, the guy do not write that he is president now. So it is a strategy to do not be sent to prison. He have been only designated and he will attempt to take the power on 23 January. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Could you write that in English? I can only make out the last sentence, but in any case, Designated = Acting. End of questions. Kingsif (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Panam2014: A section on your talk page shows that you have a bad understanding of the implementation of the term "Acting" re. politics. The sources are clear. Kingsif (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Masem have right. Assuming does not mean that he have been appointed acting president.--Panam2014 (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: the source is not clear. The source said only he is assuming the office of president, not that he is acting president. For the message in my TP, there are any link with this discussion.--Panam2014 (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

In politics, that is literally what assuming means. Kingsif (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: False. He have not signed statement as acting president. He have not took office. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Dude, buy a freakin dictionary. Acting means he hasn't fully taken office yet. I reply to you just so maybe you'll understand how wrong you are, but stop. You're wrong, the source is more clear than all of your comments combined, and you have a proven history of not understanding what you're talking about in this area. No more replies will be given. Kingsif (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Bonnie Prince Charlie declared himself to be the true King of Great Britain and was viewed as such by many people, and even recognized as such by the Pope. By your same definition he was "acting in the role" of King of Great Britain when dealing with those people, despite having "not fully taken office". Yet Bonnie Prince Charlie's Wikipedia article does not say "Interim King of Great Britain - Disputed with George III". What's the difference? VolatileChemical (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Though I feel this discussion died a while ago, the answer is simple: retrospective. Those guys sorted their dispute out. I can't imagine we'll maintain that Guaidó is acting president after he's not? No. If he stood down tomorrow, the label would go. Wait for the dispute to end for a non-dispute label. Kingsif (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"Servidor Público. Presidente de la Asamblea Nacional. Diputado AN por la Unidad de Vargas. Ing Industrial UCAB. Tiburones Pa' encima y Enamorado de Venezuela" He does not claim to be acting. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Kingsif you have not the right to archive it because the discussion have not ended. So, parties opposed have not the right to archive the discussion who have not ended. It could be a form of WP:DISRUPTIVE or a censorship. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

It was over, if you wanted to keep talking you should have started another section. Read DISRUPTIVE properly. Kingsif (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif:It is not over. I wait the responses of Masem,LXM Volo and Stalin990. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: what do you think. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@MaoGo: see here. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

If this helps: Acting president --MaoGo (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@MaoGo: in some countries, the acting president took the oath. In other hand, Guaidó have never claimed to be acting president. He have only considered the possibility do become acting president, claiming that he have the right to do it. --Panam2014 (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

As Panam2014 said, he only said he's ready to assume the position. I think all this confusion started with Almagro's declaration "recognizing" him as interim president. But he hasn't assumed nor has he said he plans to do so inmediately (he would be jailed if he said so).--Freddy eduardo (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Samtondiaz, GoodDay, and Freddy eduardo: for that, we should replace the text. What did you propose?--Panam2014 (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Panam2014: I agree with you, the article should be changed.--Freddy eduardo (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Note that two people disagree with you, only one agrees. You have no consensus. Jumping to make changes as soon as one person agrees with you is indicative of very bad editing habits. Kingsif (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: you are the sole people here to wish the article to be kept. The problem is any source said that Guaidó is acting president.

The current formulation, based on sources, tells the sources what they do not say. @Freddy eduardo: have right. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

MaoGo directed you to the Acting President page, implicitly telling you that you are misunderstanding the term. Now, literally everything else you wrote makes zero sense, I can’t even guess what you’re trying to say. With that lack of command of English, you should not be making any edits to English Wikipedia. Kingsif (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif:It's wrong. He gave a link for information only. It does not support your position. In the meantime, keeping a passage on the article that diverts the meaning of the sources is a serious problem. Now stop your personal attacks. Enough is enough.--Panam2014 (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

What does the Venezuela Constitution call for, in a situation like this. Note: After Chavez's death in 2013, Maduro immediately assumed the position of acting or interim president, when he wasn't suppose to. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@GoodDay: in 2013, Maduro sworn in in 8 March and his term retroactively began on 5 March. Here, Guaidó have not claimed to be acting president, he said only that he have the right to become acting president.--Panam2014 (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

What about the vice president? what's her situation? GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@GoodDay: the National Assembly considers that there are a vacuum power by they have not yet appointed a president and a cabinet. But according to the constitution, if a new president have not take office after 10 January, the vice president became acting president after sworning in. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

A country which doesn't follow its own constitution, is a confusing country. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: what do you think? See here--Panam2014 (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Ah, hi. I wasn't following the discussion, thanks for the ping. We had a lengthy discussion in the Spanish version, an edit war ensued and it went so far that now Wikipedia was blocked in one of the main Internet providers of Venezuela, CANTV. Juan Guaido's article in Spanish is currently fully protected. I will explain some events and list them with bullet points, hoping not to bring more confusion:

• The main confusion is that during the open cabildo, Guaidó declared that the National Assembly would be sticking to "Articles 233, 333 and 350" of the Constitution, and that it would be assuming the responsabilities of the Executive branch. However, he didn't clarify if he was assuming the presidency; he even avoided saying it directly when a journalist asked him.
• That day was a mess because of it, and other declarations followed: OAS Secretary General, the Supreme Tribunal in exile and the Soy Venezuela movement recognized him as "president". The National Assembly released a press released declaring Guaidó assumed the presidency, but changed it afterwards, sticking with Guaido's original speech.
• Last but not least, some have also argued that the date of invoking such articles is also important to determine if he's president or not. From what I reading, just some minutes ago he reaffirmed that he was the acting president.
• I should also clarify that if a new president does not take office, the president of the National Assembly becomes the acting president, not the vice president. That's one of the reasons of the debate and also one of the controversies after Chávez's death.

What do I try to say with all of this? Venezuela's political crisis isn't new and is prone to bring misunderstandings. I think the true discussion comes down to the de facto and the de iure presidencies, and both between the enforceable presidency with the Armed Forces and the international recognition. I think it's same to include Guiadó as acting president, displaying a note with its respective disputes.--Jamez42 (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Hi, do you have a source about the fact that today, he have claimed to be president? I know also that he have been reconginzed by OEA and Brazil. And about Supreme Court and Soy Venezuela Movement? --Panam2014 (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Sure thing, I hope it's okay if it is in Spanish. Guaidó declared in today's cabildo "Hay un presidente legítimo de la Asamblea Nacional y de toda Venezuela". --Jamez42 (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: this is the reference used to claim that the National Assembly declared him president on 11 January [3], as you can see, that article does not state that. It's a complete misuse of that source. Guaidó declared Maduro illegitimate and stated that he was ready to assume as interim president, however he has not declared himself president yet. The only person who has refered to him as interim president is Luis Almagro in a tweet. Every other article about this topic correctly points out that he only said he's ready to assume that position.--Freddy eduardo (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42 and Freddy eduardo: I think we should add that his term began on 13 January. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

That's complicated, you would have the question regarding the vacuum power left by Maduro and if his speech counts as an inauguration. I feel there's more consensus saying that his term started at the very least on January 11. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

He clarified again he has not declared himself interim president: [4] --Freddy eduardo (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Freddy eduardo: He wasn't quoted saying that, the quote says "That has been clarified several times". That proves my point again that there's a lot of ambiguity and we can say for certain that there are black or whites, only grays. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have been working just on cleaning up the citations, and working in the sources that had been parked in the External links section. I have not (yet) worked on flow, prose, or getting the chronology sorted, much less expansion-- all of which is easier to do once we have clean citations.

Meanwhile ...

... it would be most helpful if the old and already addressed sections of this talk page could be archived, so that we could progress towards developing a decent BLP for a person who is currently in the news headlines. I see no reason not to archive that which has already deen dealt with, so we can look at what remains to be done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Frozen assets and prohibicion de salida

Kingsif, per your edit summary here, I commented out the text here. Do you have anything new? I have not uncovered anything else, but we do have US News sourcing Reuters on same, and El Universal. Time to add it in, or are you aware of reasons we should hold off? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Nope, the BBC reports haven't materialized in anything but video, so I imagine they were in the process of updating or being safe in their coverage. Time to add it- thanks for reminding me! Kingsif (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Got it, thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

BLP sourcing

This is a BLP of a prominent politician, and only high-quality sources should be used. Yet sources like The Guardian, and albertonews (which has not even got an About page) are everywhere. The entire world is writing about Guaido right now-- there is no reason to be relying on poor sourcing here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Isn't The Guardian is one of the top neutral (mostly) sources out there... Kingsif (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

In a BLP (and particularly one of this prominence) we should be going for the highest quality sources. The BBC is a higher quality source, and has coverage. But AlbertoNews is the bigger problem ... I am unable to find anywhere on their website any of the kind of information needed to even establish reliability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

US v U.S.

We have a mix-- I prefer the simpler. Does anyone care if I change all U.S. to US, and all U.K. to UK? @Kingsif: ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Feel free Kingsif (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks ... I'll give it a day to see if anyone objects, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Lead

Right now the lead is basically a list of reactions to him proclaiming presidency. I believe it should be rewritten to partially reflect what is in the lead of the 2019 Venezuelan Presidential crisis article.Simon1811 (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is a bio; it is not an event—it is about a person. It is not a duplicate of the Presidential crisis article, nor should it be. It does reflect the Presidential crisis, by appropriately mentioning and linking to that article in multiple places. Per WP:LEAD, it should:

... give the basics in a nutshell and cultivate interest in reading on... stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

It does that. What you call "reactions" are actually "actions"; the first paragraph introduces him and explains why he is notable; the second paragraph covers the Presidential crisis; the third summarizes the person's actions as a political figure, in the same format used for any political leader. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Humor in the midst of it all

• Guaido challenge created. Please note that the hashtag that is trending does NOT have the accent on his name, but I did create a redirect with the accent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 January 2019

Change interim president to self declared interim president.

Change rejected by the governments of China, Russia and Turkey amongst others. 2A02:908:1D8:7B20:88EC:9AD4:8DA2:A217 (talk) 08:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Lead

Right now the lead is basically a list of reactions to him proclaiming presidency. I believe it should be rewritten to partially reflect what is in the lead of the 2019 Venezuelan Presidential crisis article.Simon1811 (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Jamez42 (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is a bio; it is not an event—it is about a person. It is not a duplicate of the Presidential crisis article, nor should it be. It does reflect the Presidential crisis, by appropriately mentioning and linking to that article in multiple places. Per WP:LEAD, it should:

... give the basics in a nutshell and cultivate interest in reading on... stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

It does that. What you call "reactions" are actually "actions"; the first paragraph introduces him and explains why he is notable; the second paragraph covers the Presidential crisis; the third summarizes the person's actions as a political figure, in the same format used for any political leader. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Edits to map?

The map by User:ZiaLater includes Crimea as part of Russia--a recognition that goes solidly against the majority of UN member states (112 vs. 21 members). It's a small thing, but worthy of change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:C5 (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater:, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The same map also colors Taiwan as a independent country, however MOST UN member states recognize the PRC ONLY. If you want to show the de jure situation like the previous edit, then Taiwan should be included as a part of the PRC. By the way, Kosovo is also a de jure part of Serbia, so it too should be removed.--A planetree leaf (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

If the map wants to show the de facto situation, then perhaps Crimea should remain as part of Russia, while Abkhazia and South Ossetia should be colored separately since the de jure and de facto situation should not be shown on the same map. It's a small thing, but it should be noticed.A planetree leaf (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

A planetree leaf Please see the response in the section below; the map is an image. The work to update the map is at Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis; this article is a bio about the person and does not attempt to summarize every country, person, group in support of or against the interim president. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you are right about this. Would you mind if I create a new section about the map problem at the Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis?--59.66.60.251 (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot to log in. (I'm new here)A planetree leaf (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello again, A planetree leaf. I have just been trying to archive some sections at Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, and most of the (very lengthy) talk page is about map problems. You are free to weigh in there, but I wish you luck-- it's a mess :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts :) A planetree leaf (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

31 Jan, Plan Pais and EU vote

Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Lots to do. Maintain article because it is no longer semi-protected, but according to social media, 31 Jan is potential EU vote, and AN announces #PlanPais. The EU update should be fairly easy, except for ZiaLater's map. I am going to try to get a head start by roughing out in my sandbox what is known in advance about Plan Pais, so it will be ready-- just letting this page know to avoid duplication of effort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC) @SandyGeorgia: How should the map be updated? I think it is easier to have a separate maps; one for recognition and one for neutrality. I believe that if we begin adding colors, it will turn into a WP:OR mess. Just trying to define who recognizes who is bad enough, which is why it has been recommended that sources must have both reliable and explicit words of recognition towards one party. Sorry if I am repeating myself, but this might be helpful to those entering into the disucssion a little late. ----ZiaLater (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Too soon to say, because it depends on vote outcome ... it appears (at least from what is on social media) that the EU tomorrow is going to endorse Gauido, since Maduro is intransigent about elections, so then your work would be easy, no? Or perhaps I am not understanding the question. I got Juan Andrés Mejía stubbed, since social media say he will be the director of Plan Pais, which will be Gauido's plan to get the economy moving again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC) @SandyGeorgia: Even if individual countries make different decisions, it should not be too difficult to edit the map. It may not be updated in at a record time, but I will be sure that it is accurate.----ZiaLater (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC) I know you will ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Plan Pais @Jamez42 and ZiaLater: for opinion on how to name Plan Pais article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC) OK, here's what I have, pending the announcement tomorrow, preferably with high quality, English-language sources ... feel free to edit here, so it will be ready to drop in to domestic policy tomorrow. So, this work hopefully will be mostly done, assuming the video I found on social media from ... MAN that last guy talks fast!!! ... [5] is what they will announce tomorrow (along with the Univision source): Guaidó announced on 31 January that the National Assembly had approved a commission that will further develop and implement a plan for the reconstruction of Venezuela, to be headed by AN Deputy Juan Andrés Mejía. Called Plan País, it has been under elaboration for some time, and has been developed through a series of public and private meetings in the US and Venezuela; experts from all sectors were consulted, including economist Ricardo Hausmann, politicians and diplomats Julio Borges and Carlos Vecchio, and Leopoldo López along with Guaidó. According to Guaido, the aims of the plan are to "stabilize the economy, attend to the humanitarian emergency immediately, rescue public services, and overcome poverty". The principle thrusts of the plan are to 1) combat hyperinflation and increase salaries, 2) raise the level of petroleum production, and 3) to address social concerns and provide food and medicine to those most in need. Implementation of the plan requires Maduro's exit. All good info - as for the page name in English, if it's a proper noun without an official English translation, we should use the original name i.e. Plan País, maybe call the page "Plan País (Venezuela)" or something. Kingsif (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Installed, but with some portions that are not yet verifiable outside of social media commented out for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC) @SandyGeorgia: @Kingsif: Plan País is fine. If it gets moved in the future, there can be a discussion about its translation in the talk page when we first create it about the proper English translation.----ZiaLater (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC) @ZiaLater:, did you see the next two sections, where Kingsif posted The Guardian source? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC) National Plan Al Jazeera is calling it the "National Plan", so maybe we wait a few days to see if an English term coalesces, aiming for National Plan (Venezuela)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Univision is calling it the "Country Plan". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC) I think this is stupid-- it sounds like going on a picnic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Plan for the Country The Guardian is calling it "Plan for the Country", and also notes that it's a direct play against Maduro's "Plan de la Patria". Kingsif (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC) I am liking that one best so far, but we should hear from others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Having read the entire Guardian article, I'm all in for this one (Plan for the Country); we do not have to append (Venezuela), because it's the only one. I'm also OK with calling it Plan Pais, but I'm afraid some ambitious editor will come along in the future and move it to English. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC) @SandyGeorgia: @Kingsif: Still support Plan País and then we can work on English translation for lede in the talk page.----ZiaLater (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC) @SandyGeorgia: @Kingsif: @ZiaLater: Being a native Spanish speaker, I like Plan País way more. We could name it just "Plan País", since from what I see there aren't similar plans or articles with the same name and there's no need to specify with "(Venezuela)". --Jamez42 (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC) OK, so far looks like everyone is on for Plan Pais. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done, Plan País created, text here and at Crisis article trimmed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Post-creating support - yeah, simply Plan País works best in general. Especially with no solid English name. Kingsif (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Link to Pres crisis article

Jamez42, I liked the way Simon had linked the whole phrase instead of just one part of it; could we go back to that?[6] I also like to avoid sweating the little stuff when there is so much work to be done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: You have a point there. Self reverting. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems like it was already done before I could. Oh, well. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I see that. I am of the old school that we should always use the talk page vis-a-vis WP:BRD ! It takes time, but it saves more time! Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Guaidó's claim to the interim presidency was recognized and rejected by governments across the Americas and the world, as well as calls for dialogue to resolve the dispute.

Simon1811 I like your expanded linking (much better thank you), but the "as well as" isn't working grammatically. Can we change "as well as" to "with some"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Simon1811 is blocked now as a sock. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2019

but is rejected by others, including the Chinese, Turkish, Russian, Iranian, Cuban, Bolivian, Mexican governments.

https://www.rt.com/news/449537-bolsonaro-recognizes-venezuela-guaido/ Nf.oscar.2015 (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Summary style and lead on Recognition of each

I have made adjustments to deal with this request and Walkinxyz's changes with these edits. This article uses summary style, with the intent to avoid repeating the entire mess that is over at 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis#Recognition, and to keep this article focused on the person/BLP. The other article covers the blow-by-blow, who's who. I have done several things to hopefully address the concern: 1) provided specific links to the other article, 2) provided another hatnote, and 3) provided an additional citation to address Walkinxyz's statement about Gauido vis-a-vis worldwide (that is, regarding only UK, eg Australia, Albania, Israel, Morocco; European nations are not the only ones to call for dialogue; and "most" is original research). So that we can hopefully avoid bringing that mess over here, please discuss here on talk other solutions. Please remember also that leads are summaries; it is neither possible nor desirable to list every country in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Cordyceps-Zombie re this edit, there are other countries that are not Communist that support Maduro. You could discuss whether it is only Communist countries supporting him over at Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis; this is a bio/BLP, that briefly summarizes the Recognition from the broader article. I see you have already been reverted, and I support the revert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2019

Map posted by ZiaLater is out of date. Countries that recognize Maduro as President are: Russia,China,Turkey,Iran,Syria,Cuba,Urugay,Bolivia,Nicaragua,Mexico,Belarus. Actual map can be found here: Belonging to this article As for January 28th also South Africa is supporting Maduro.

I think it is important to see who is supporting who. My apologies for any mistake on my first edit request. I´m new on this. Nf.oscar.2015 (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Nf.oscar.2015 thank you for your post, and welcome to Wikipedia! Keeping the map up to date is a big effort that is mostly addressed at the page Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. Because the map is an image, we can't really update it from here. ZiaLater is doing their best to keep up with it, and will see your post here as soon as time permits. Also, this article does not attempt to repeat the information at 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, rather summarize it. (That map is actually a bit older than Wikipedia's, so it looks like ZiaLater is doing a great job!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nf.oscar.2015: With both Mexico and Uruguay, we are waiting for their official support as with all other nations. Both countries initially made statement recognizing Maduro, but backtracked in order to display neutrality do dialogue could occur. I know for a fact that Mexico has begun to abide by the Estrada Doctrine which means that they do not express themselves supporting one side or the other, they will maintain diplomatic relations and will let the people of a country decide their internal affairs. If we are going to take the word of both Mexico and Uruguay, then they are both neutral to the conflict because they want to support dialogue.----ZiaLater (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Review

Looking at this list it seems we haven’t missed much. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Socialist International

From this version (which had four sources and said that Guaido himself was a member of Socialist International (a coalition of parties), I have moved this text from the lead to the body of the article, and adjusted it considerably. First, it is more about the Popular Will party than Gauido (appropriate for the lead of Popular Will perhaps, but not here). Second, the WP:LEAD of an article should be an overall summary; giving this one point about the party (that is not even in the body of the article) so much prominence in the lead isn't appropriate. (Leads are better written once the article is fully developed-- this one is not yet, but even when it is, this text is unlikely to be one of the most important points for the lead, which should end up at about three paragraphs.) Third, the text did not agree with the source, and the translation had some issues. I have adjusted the text to agree with what the sources say, and placed the exact Spanish quote so the reader can decide. Fourth, placing four citations should rarely be necessary; I have reduced them to two, which say the same thing.

I have left out the endorsement by Socialist International, because that would open the door to adding every group, country and organization that endorses him to this article. That territory is better covered at 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Someone should tell all the members of Socialist International that they endorse him Remarkable edit; not just removing/rephrasing strange text, but recognizing the nature of it and further editing. I like these edits, thought I'd thank you for the effort! Kingsif (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Man, it's hard to keep this set of articles to a tight, encyclopedic focus! Encyclopedia, encyclopedia ... not full daily news :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Henri Falcón

Hi

According to his Twitter account (checked), he recognize Guaidóas president. Could we add it? --Panam2014 (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Please read the sections above; this article is a bio-- about the person. The who's who of support/reject is over at Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis and is only briefly and generally summarized here (per WP:SS), because it doesn't make sense to have all that mess in multiple places. Thanks for asking, though! If there is a landslide of local support, we would summarize that in one or two sentences from the broader crisis article, but this article should stay focused on the biography, not the minute-by-minute news. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Minor debate about pronunciation of "Juan"

According to the IPA pronunciation in the article the J sound in "Juan" and the G sound in "Gerardo" are pronounced with /x/ but in Venezuelan Spanish this is pronounced as a /h/. Check Spanish dialects and varieties#Pronunciation of j. I have tried to change it but it has been reverted several times. --MaoGo (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

IPA is all gibberish to me, so I can't help. But, yes, Gerardo is prounced Herardo in Venezuela. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

El Pais article on corral strategy

Re: these additions, @ZiaLater:, is there an article on the Republica Dominicana negotiations? @Jamez42: look at all those redlinks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I think I could start at the very least the stubs of the articles, for the time being. Sorry for answering to Zia's question, but I think it's worth noting that months ago I started the article in Spanish Dialogues during the Venezuelan crisis, including the negotiations in Dominicana. So far, no article in English is linked to the Wikidata item. Note aside, Maduro called opposition members "mendigos"; maybe it could be included in the article. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Will work on these. Holy cow, these politicians are working so hard and moving so fast, it's impossible to keep up with them ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't figure out how to link to that article. Think not to go into mendingos here, as this is specific to Guaido. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's really hard, Venezuela has mostly had very dynamic news, which is why it'd be excellent if there were more editors that could participate. Before I forget, red links turned blue! --Jamez42 (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Interlanguage links

I figured out how use the Template:Interlanguage link with different text displayed. @Jamez42: thanks for keeping up with the red links! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Great Pictures for the Protest Section

I found the link from a NYTs article, but I'm unsure if I'm able to upload them. They're from a protest in 2017 where he's confronted by police, and ultimately unfortunately the police resort to violence. But it goes well in to his history as to what he did before becoming president. But like I said, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to upload one. https://www.instagram.com/p/BtMh1kKDP5w/?utm_source=ig_embed&fbclid=IwAR3RJmyT7QtXw0qb7t_kR_ClNEINYt1lLX1EFrhYoxjiefFIiAKKffsAjOQ Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

No, that would probably be a copyright violation. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Too bad, oh well. Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2019

First line of section "President of the National Assembly" does not show a citation for the assertion that Guaido was elected to the office. Citations 10 and 12 are linked to articles that are blocked by paywalls and cannot be verified. Isaacgwatkins (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 09:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

It is clear to me what is wanted, but sources are not required to not be behind a paywall. And that Guaido is president of the National Assembly is not even vaguely controversial or hard to verify. No change needed, but if someone wants to add a freely available source, it won't hurt. While the article is in a damaged state, subject to reversion, I prefer to make as few changes as possible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done [7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Extraordinary OAS session

... is a term used when a special (e.g. emergency) session is called. It was, and it is cited. I have reinstated cited text deleted by Simon1811; please discuss. It is not "editorializing"; it is what they are referred to when they are not regularly scheduled meetings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

See here; it is the OAS' own terminology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Simon1811 was sockblocked; does anyone object to archiving of this section? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Lead to public personna

Kingsif, I moved this material to the Personna section and slightly re-worded. The text isn't really appropriate for the lead, because it is not a feeling widely shared in Venezuela; please remember Obama's stance on Cuba, and reflect on how Venezuelans feel about that. Putting controversial text that is purely opinion, and largely based on appearance, and backed by ultra-liberal sources like Vox, could lead to problems. Particularly this early in the game (note that some of those sources that came out early on would have something very different to say today about Guaido's popularity and political acumen.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I put it in the lead because of being a brief summary of a lot of sources. Was unsure whether to add a "comparisons to Obama" section under persona - there are some that compare them on the fact Obama introduced some early Venezuela sanctions, as reaching as that it - or social media, since users around Latin America are sharing comparison photos re. the similar appearance. Kingsif (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You did a great job on the writing, summary and formatting! I find these appearance comparisons borderline racist (both thin handsome light-skinned black men), but my husband disagrees, so maybe I am oversensitive. And I notice the Peruvian source is quoting Twitter; he's not reading the streams I am seeing on Twitter and Instagram, where Venezuelans are horrified by this comparison because of the Cuba issue. Anyway, as things evolve, we can write a better lead and see if that fits. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Kingsif most of this text was deleted in the series of cuts made by Kashmiri and discussed below. Shall I archive this section? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure, archive away. Kingsif (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Juan Guaidó restored version.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Photo quality

Guaidó presenting Plan País

This image is not very good quality; might we remove it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

From this page, it's not very important, but it should stay on Plan País until there's a better oen. Kingsif (talk) 11:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Freemason?

No idea about the veracity of the source, but according to [8] Guaido is a freemason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.13.46 (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

In Venezuela? Let’s chalk this one up to “seemingly unaffiliated popular figure appears, Freemasons try to claim him” and laugh. Kingsif (talk) 11:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Undue weight, the freemasons care, no one else does. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done --Jamez42 (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It would be a BLP vio to add that text based on that source; does anyone object to archiving this as done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Biased against Chavez

What's the point of this article being edited by people that are biased against Chavez ? How does this help with "neutral point of view" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.13.46 (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Please elaborate as to what you mean by "Biased against Chavez? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cordyceps-Zombie (talk • contribs) 12:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Having a negative view on Chavez and his policies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.13.46 (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for elaborating; please read WP:NOTAFORUM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done --Jamez42 (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing actionable here; I suggest it can be archived. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course, marked for archiving. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Lead paragraph (Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2019)

In the first paragraph, add 'currently serving as the Interim President of Venezuela' because it does not show up on Google when you search for "Juan Guaido" unless you add it that sentence ti the first paragraph 2600:6C4A:4E7F:F410:A062:6A3D:F37A:815A (talk) 06:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

First paragraph of lead

Kashmiri, to my knowledge, you are the only editor who might possibly object, so could we please have your opinion on this so that we might answer the edit request one way or another? MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH says (emphasis mine):

The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it.

If you agree this information belongs in the first paragraph, then we can separately propose neutral wording. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: On the one hand, we need to say this, because this is what the guy is known for these days. On the other hand, we must acknowledge that this is mirred in controversy, it is not universally accepted that he is an I.P.. Give me a few hours please. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

No hurry; just didn't want the edit request person to think we were ignoring it. It would be helpful if you would propose text here, so we could develop consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

This source (just added to the article to cite "more than 50") provides some wording ideas: "... uncharted territory — whereby it now has an internationally-recognized government, with no control over state functions, running parallel to Maduro's regime." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I also looked at articles like Abkhazia, South Ossetia for inspiration. I think the word "contested" is closest. Just getting the wording right. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:06, 13 Febcruary 2019 (UTC)

I understand why one would search Abkhazia, South Ossetia etc. but aren't they a bit different in that they're regions, and not persons? I mean for that matter Tsai Ing-wen is listed as the President of the Republic of China. So as per that, why not just call him the President of Venezuela, and then say though this is contested with a link to the 2019 Venezuelan Presidential Crisis? (And no I'm not anti-Taiwanese, just pointing out a similar situation with resolution on Wiki ie Taiwan is not recognized by the majority of the world as a country, and its president is still listed as well... president and of the ROC not Taiwan to boot). As a side note the wiki battle ground for that solution must have been epic.Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking for wording used in controversial political contexts when dealing with partial recognition. Your comparison to Taiwan is flawed, in the sense that Tsai's presidency in Taiwan is non-controversial and non-disputed; it is Taiwan's status as an independent state that is disputed. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

So is Abkhazia for that matter since it's a rebel territory, and not a person. Tsai has the benefit of being a person. Alcibiades979 (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Forget about it. You clearly are not getting the idea of looking for good wording to articles on controversies. Just go and read your Tsai or even Shakespeare article but please do not copy the wording from there. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Although he is not recognized by all countries in the world, Guaido is recognized by most of the free world and 90% of the Venezuelan people. Therefore, the lead paragraph should contain all of his job positions, in which Interim President of Venezuela is one of them. The lead paragraph is there to give the reader a firsthand outlook of who Guaido is, and it needs to contain that he is not just President of the National Assembly. Including that he is also the Interim President is not too specific to the reading, it just adds one more important detail that the lead paragraph should obtain. Ballers19 (Talk) 06:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

off topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Most of the free world"? "Maduro's regime"? Are you working for Fox News? Sorry, but this is an encyclopaedia. — kashmīrī TALK 09:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC) Please don't make personal attacks. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC) Okay, please tell me you are not misinformed about the current crisis and happen to be siding with Maduro and his dictatorship. That would be very sad. By the way, it is "encyclopedia". With that being said, the edit should be made to the first paragraph. Thank you! Ballers19 (Talk) 11:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC) Perhaps we can remember that Ballers19 appears to be a relatively new editor, and take discussion to their talk page of how Wikipedia works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Waiting for your remark here, too. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

If we're thinking about the same revert, I don't think it is the best wording to say "approximately X countries" or saying 60 countries have recognized Guaidó instead of 50. However, I think that his interim presidency (or better presidencia encargada, I'm not sure of what the best translation would be) should be included in the lead, among its controversies. Per WP:NPOV, you would be including the legality which is explored in the article, the de facto power still held by Maduro and the recognition from the international community. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

So, do you intend to mention that Guaidó has been recognised by approx. 28% of the world's countries? Or whitewash about "large international recognition across countries and continents", stress the legal premises and denounce "the Maduro regime" in the lede? Just asking. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Part of me thinks this is a bit over complicated. Why not say something along the lines of... 'on January 13th citing the Venezuelan Constitution which nominates the president of the National Assembly to the office of Acting President should the elected president be lacking, and claiming Maduro's reelection was fraudulent, Juan Guaidó took the oath of office. This has been disputed by some including Maduro, and has precipitated the 2019 Venezuelan Presidential Crisis.' Sweet, to the point, and NPOV. We don't have to use exactly that, but generally the simpler the less issue. Having rereviewed the current second paragraph, it looks strong to me. Alcibiades979 (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Mostly my point. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that (once we come up with the wording), that belongs in the second paragraph, which covers the dilemma. The first sentence needs to plainly and simply work in the interim presidency, as that is the main reason we are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

But I understood that the OP wanted the words "interim president" go into the first sentence, so that they show up in Google results. Otherwise, I stick to my view that it is out of scope to describe the legal reasoning in the lead section (which is also in violation of MOS:BIO). We are not his solicitors and don't need to justify why the subject said he is a president. It suffices to say that he proclaimed himself as one, and send those who want to know further details on the legal environment to the 2019 Crisis article. Just as a heads up, Guaidó's reasoning is challenged by some legal experts, so given this is a bio, I'd keep the extended debate on the Venezuelan constitution, its articles, elections, etc., out of this article; definitely out of the lead section. Here, let's only state broadly who the guy was and why he is of note, so that an average Joe or a high school kid can get an idea. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I suggest we separate the two matters, to deal with the edit request first and separately. (My suggestion for later is that whatever detail we provide for context on the interim presidency goes in the second paragraph... deal here with first sentence.) The Spanish Wikipedia has:

Juan Gerardo Guaidó Márquez (La Guaira, estado Vargas, Venezuela; 28 de julio de 1983) es un ingeniero y político venezolano, actual presidente de la Asamblea Nacional de Venezuela y parcialmente reconocido como presidente encargado de Venezuela.

So with that example as a starting place, it is possible to get the interim mention in the first sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

A proposal: "...is a Venezuelan politician who has been serving as the President of the National Assembly of Venezuela since 5 January 2019 and who has been partially recognised as Interim President of Venezuela since 10 January 2019. He is a member of..." . Skipping "engineer" as this I understand that was what he was in his "previous life", so could go to Early life and career below (but no major objection to keep it in the lede either). — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• ^^Yes, that is a good description for the lead paragraph. Ballers19 (Talk) 23:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• That works for me, no concern about dropping engineer, but with mention of the date 10 January now in the lead, we will need to tighten up this text in the body:

  After what he and others described as the "illegitimate" inauguration of Maduro on 10 January 2019, Guaidó said that he would challenge Maduro's claim to the presidency.[47] The National Assembly announced Guaidó had assumed the powers and duties of president, and they would continue to plan to remove Maduro.

  Because the date is in the first sentence, and it may not be clear to the reader if it applies to the second sentence. I am not going to be online much for the next day, but agree in theory with the proposed text, as long as we tighten up the date reference and make sure the body and lead stay in sync. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  Well, that's already quite controversial. To the best of my knowledge, the Venezuelan law does not grant the National Assembly or its leader the powers to declare presidential elections or inauguration as valid or invalid. Only TSJ is legally allowed to do it and Guaidó's political gamble, as much as popular, seems to be quite shaky legally. OK, granted, history is written by winners, but here let's avoid advocating for either side of the conflict, especially in the lede, irrespective of how popular/unpopular they are, as it will be a violation of our sacred principle of NPOV.

It's sufficient to say that Guaidó announced that he intends to challenge Maduro's presidency. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The legitimate Tribunal of Justice already declared that the elections were invalid, besides that Maduro isn't fit for running for office since he has a double nationality and because he was indicted of corruption, but the da facto justices still hold office. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The legitimacy of Panama TSJ is also contested, to-date its declarations don't seem to have been legally binding on aonyone. For instance, it has declared the 2013 presidential election illegal, but the rest of the world still recognised Maduro while Maduro's signature (for example on on new acts of law) had legal power. So, recognition or denouncement by the Panama TSJ does not seem to be the best benchmark of legality. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that is a proof of legality, only that the sentence is not enforced. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• I guess my post was confusing. Kashmiri, please reread ... I was not suggesting that text for the lead. I was saying that if we are going to use a 10 January date in the lead, we have to sync that date with the text in the body. I am not all that certain we can or should use a 10 January date-- we would need to closely check sources. (An aside: [9] [10]) Also, avoid using the word "Venezuela" three times in first sentence. And American English.

  So, starting over ... yes, drop engineer. But also drop date specifics from lead, which can introduce confusion, so:

  "...is a Venezuelan politician who has been serving as President of the National Assembly and who has been partially recognized as Interim President of Venezuela since January 2019. He is a member of..."

  That avoids the whole cascade of dates in January, leading up to 23 January oath. @ZiaLater: could we get your input on the dates, whether they are needed, whether we have them right, etc. ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Placing January 2019 is most likely the best choice of words. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I misread. Version without dates sounds very well to me. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Sandy's text is fine. I am going to make a quick edit and see if you approve.----ZiaLater (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

If everyone is satisfied, shall we archive this section now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Images "looking" at text

Please see MOS:IMAGELOCATION regarding placement of this image. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Most images should be right justified on pages. This is the general rule. As an exception, It is often preferable to place images of people so that they "look" toward the text. So, feel free to place this photo any way you like it, but please do not suggest that its current placement violates MOS. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Read the rest of the very section you quote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The Making of Juan Guaidó

A very interesting piece of writing, complete with links to sources. [11] — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Dan Cohen is an RT correspondent (Wikipedia is not sourced to propaganda), the founder of that site has reliability issues, the source is deemed not reliable at RSN, the bias is laughably evident, with easily spotted distortions borderline lies, but more ... do these people really not recognize what role Venezuelans themselves played in choosing their representatives? Reliable sources tell us, oh, yes, there was some of what this article calls "making" of Guaido-- by his Venezuelan mentors.[12] [13] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

That source is not RT. Is this taint by association?

The article makes a number of important allegations that are not backed up by any evidence in the article. But there is clear evidence (in the article) that Guaido has been active in violent anti-government agitation. The photo of him in helmet and gas-mask is a bit of a giveaway.

I'm not saying it's a wonderful source for a WP article. It isn't. But I do think it's a very interesting article, a credible account of how Guaido got to where he is, and gives strong clues as to how this coup is likely to unfold. MrDemeanour (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Describing photo evidence as "violent anti-government agitation" means you may not be up on what reliable sources say about demonstrations in Venezuela. In order to peacefully demonstrate under chavismo, the helmet and gas mask are a necessity (for those who can afford them), since chavismo regularly opened fire on peaceful demonstrators, and fired tear gas bombs point blank at them. And rubber bullets. And real bullets. (This stopped after 23 January because the world is watching, and for the first time in years, the peaceful demonstrations are not violently repressed.) The points made in this biased article about alleged Washington DC influence are already incorporated in the Wikipedia article, by more neutral sources that also recognize the role played by Venezuelans themselves. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Also if MrDemeanour says that it is not a wonderful source for Wikipedia, why are we discussing it? --MaoGo (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

To avoid claims of bias in the article and to point out that the (few) useful parts of the non-reliable source are already incorporated, via more neutral and knowledgeable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Well your fantastic stories are anything but non-biased, so I assume you know what it is to be biased. :-( Hoffmansk 00:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmansk (talk • contribs)

Do you have a contribution that involves discussion of what reliable sources say on the topic? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The lead author Max Blumenthal is certainly a well known and respected author. According to an article in the New York Times last year, which has been a reliable supporter of the opposition, "Motley throngs of masked antigovernment protesters hurl rocks, fireworks and Molotov cocktails. The police and soldiers retaliate with tear gas, water cannon blasts, rubber bullets and buckshot."[14] I get the view that it is only violence when the other side does it, but don't see why Blumenthatl's opinions should be excluded. TFD (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand. I'm not a wiki editor but when seeing the article and here seeing that the only pro-US coup contributor seems to be SandyGeorgia that stands alone, why is the article so heavily biased against Maduro, the elected president, and pro Guaidó, the usurper that works for John Bolton? How does Wikipedia work, if not by a majority deciding what to write? How does he hold the power to make the article to his will against more people? Sinekonata (talk) 06:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Meganalisis

The source for many claims regarding polls is Meganalisis. Their Twitter feed makes them seem like a very biased source that is being given undue weight; pinned Tweet about "Venezuelans rejecting socialism", etc. Their questions kind of betray their agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.253.17.238 (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

A fair comment. I now went through their website[15] and as of today it contains only four polls, all from the last five weeks. The website text claims long history, but the internet domain encuestadorameganalisis.com itself was registered on 25 March 2018 while their Twitter feed started on 12 April 2017. This leads me to a conclusion that they are not a reliable source. Certainly, we would not source anything on Wikipedia to a newspaper or even an academic journal which was started barely 2 years ago. I propose to remove all material sourced to Meganalisis and rename the section accordingly. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Meganálisis has polls as early as of 2013, and their polls have been broadly reported by reliable sources: [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] --Jamez42 (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep mention of meganalisis because numerous reliable sources are reporting them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep I don't think we should ever quote polling firms directly but should use reliable secondary sources that report them, as is done in the article. I have no idea how reliable these polls are, but we should not second guess reliable sources that report them. TFD (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep, it is reliable enough, other sources are using its results. --MaoGo (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Guaido position on Georgia

Removed for discussion and better sourcing:

According to Smolansky and Vecchio, Guaidó seeks to withdraw Venezuela's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and restore full diplomatic relations with Georgia.

References

These sources, claiming other sources, do not rise to the level of sourcing quality needed for a BLP. If Guaido takes these positions, higher quality reliable sources will have reported it. Please seek better sources before reinstating. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Vargas state deputy

This edit changed Guiado as Vargas state deputy to past tense. Do we know he is not also still the Vargas deputy?  @ZiaLater, Oscar, Jamez42, and Samtondiaz: does someone have information ? I also made some copyedits to this change; ly modifiers are never hyphenated, and I changed the "of Venezuela" to the first occurrence of National Assembly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi! The past tense should only be used until the new legislative elections take place. Guaidó is currently president of the National Assembly, but he was still elected for the Vargas state. As far as I understand, this is the same case for the former Assembly Speakers. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks-- that was also my understanding. Will adjust. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Lead image

I have closed the deletion discussion over the current lead image, the discussion was here. I replaced it with an image from the Commons gallery that seemed to be fine, but feel free to propose and discuss others. Cambalachero (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! But we already had that image, so I used another one in the lead (and I hadn't noticed your edit when I did that)-- what do you think? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that one is better. Like the deleted one, it is a close view of his face, ideal as lead photo. Cambalachero (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I can´t to do comment

In Spanish I can not comment. I sent an email to Wikipedia saying why this happened. Guaidó is a person who came to a place and was sworn in as president of a country. I think it's a small detail too big to be underestimated. regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.90.182.174 (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Cuts to the article

I have significantly trimmed the article. I see some editors clearly felt an urge to discuss the wider Venezueal crisis in this biographical article. However, there is a dedicated article on the crisis and this one has to remain a biography.

Consequently, in order to ensure compliance with MOS:BIO and WP:BLP, I have removed the majority of passages that did not talk about the article subject, his life, career or views. I also removed a huge number of WP:PEACOCK terms that served only to promote the subject and to me personally very much resembled the crude Soviet propaganda of the 1970s, sorry!

I did not go too deeply into sourcing as it did not raise red flags. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

You are invoking WP:BLP without reason. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Significant removal of well sourced text

This series of edits by Kashmiri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) removed 1,400 words of reliably sourced text.

1. 08:56 instead of taking a "more neutral tone", has removed the text that Guaido is rejected by a number of countries, removed any mention of Maduro from the lead (and leaves him undefined or linked anywhere), introduced grammatical issues with factual inconsistencies and weasly text ("claim to presidency based on an interpretation of the constitution"), removed context necessary for complying with WP:LEAD, and removed a well-documented qualifier (pro-Maduro) of the TSJ. The weasly "interpretation of the constitution" in the lead is now undefined in the body. I suggest restoral of the original.
2. 08:58 introduces POV (leaving only dubious content with negative implications while removing everything else) and breaches WP:LEAD

   The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.[2] The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

   I suggest restoral.

   The context is mentioned and the relevant article that offers more details is prominently linked. LEAD has to outline who the article subject was and what he is notable form, that's all. Keep it simple! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmiri (talk • contribs) 13:56, February 8, 2019 (UTC)

3. 09:00, no reasonable reason for the deletion given. Three instances are detailed in the article. That the detention was "only" 45 minutes is less relevant than the role the detention played in the overall picture. — SandyGeorgia 11:19, February 8, 2019‎ — continues after insertion below

   It is still undue. Getting stopped by secret police for 45 minutes is not worth mentioning in my view in what is to be a concise bio, unless the intention is to build a martyrology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmiri (talk • contribs) 13:56, February 8, 2019 (UTC)

4. 09:04 claims a "problem with sourcing editorials" and cherry picking. There is not a problem with sourcing editorials when they are properly attributed and used, which is this case with Tovar-Arroyo. Please specify what is cherry picked. Tovar-Arroyo was active in the student movement with Guaido, and as such, gives context for Guaido's rise in politics and discusses his character. The edit further removes multiple sources that are not editorials. I suggest restoral. — SandyGeorgia 11:19, February 8, 2019‎ — continues after insertion below

   The quote was a string of peacock terms while he is a WP:PRIMARY source and, additionally, a WP:PARTISAN source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmiri (talk • contribs) 13:56, February 8, 2019 (UTC)

5. 09:06 removes reliably sourced text, covering a threat by Cabello against Guaido, using reasoning that the article is a bio. As with most of this series of edits, there is no valid reason provided for deletion of well-sourced text. Restore. — SandyGeorgia 11:19, February 8, 2019‎ — continues after insertion below

   Reliably sourced threats have been kept earlier in the article. This was removed as a lengthy discussion of a mudslinging video clip shown on Venezueal TV last week – something that will certainly be forgotten a year from now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmiri (talk • contribs) 13:56, February 8, 2019 (UTC)

6. 09:08 removes well-sourced appointments, saying this text does not belong in a bio. MOS:BIO gives no reason for this deletion. It would be very rare to not explain how a president (interim or not) designates personnel to get the job done. Restore. — SandyGeorgia 11:19, February 8, 2019‎ — continues after insertion below

   This is a biography of a Mr Guaidó and not an essay on Venezuelan representations abroad. The sources do not confirm that the mentioned envoys played any significant role in Guaidó's life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmiri (talk • contribs) 13:56, February 8, 2019 (UTC)

7. 09:10 removes reliably sourced text because the remover disagrees with the placement/section heading. Restore — SandyGeorgia 11:19, February 8, 2019‎ — continues after insertion below

   No. Because it does not talk about human rights but only complains about demonstrators getting killed. A very narrow point of view that does not justify the title. By the way, the subject supports Venezuela's claim to Guayana Esequiba, apparently in disregard to the human right of self-determination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmiri (talk • contribs) 13:56, February 8, 2019 (UTC)

8. 09:11 removes sourced text, calling it peacockery. Restore. — SandyGeorgia 11:19, February 8, 2019‎ — continues after insertion below

   Sourced peacockery is still peacockery, moreover the source is not a credible psychologist but a party colleague. Unlike mass media, Wikipedia is not there to build someone's positive image but to convey verifiable facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmiri (talk • contribs) 13:56, February 8, 2019 (UTC)

9. 09:12 removes well sourced text needed for balance, using Manual of Style for a reason. No valid reason for deletion given. Restore. — SandyGeorgia 11:19, February 8, 2019‎ — continues after insertion below

   Sourced to... an interview with the subject! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmiri (talk • contribs) 13:56, February 8, 2019 (UTC)

10. 09:18 removes well sourced context directly related to Guaido's actions in the office, saying not to "delve into what other actors were doing'. Ignoring what other actors were doing removes context for Guaido's actions. Restore. — SandyGeorgia 11:19, February 8, 2019‎ — continues after insertion below

    No. Context is given elsewhere. You cannot have 50% of a bio article discussing not the subject but international politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmiri (talk • contribs) 13:56, February 8, 2019 (UTC)

11. 09:21 "remove[swhat is in the lead already". Leads are summaries of text in the body. There should not be text in the lead which is not found in the body of the article. The edit summary says "NPOV language" but works against neutrality, by removing mention of countries that reject the interim presidency. Restore. — SandyGeorgia 11:19, February 8, 2019‎ — continues after insertion below

    Why on earth would any sane person want to keep such a list in a biography? It's there in the main article on the crisis, it's pointless to duplicate it in a bio. Please do not stick everything Venezuela-related to the biography of the parliament's Speaker! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmiri (talk • contribs) 13:56, February 8, 2019 (UTC)

12. 09:23 wholesale and remarkable deletion of well sourced text using summary style with no valid reason given. Restore.
13. 09:27 disagree with not providing context for Guaido's actions, but I can accept this edit.
14. 09:28 removes cited text, partially helpful rephrasing, except for grammar.
15. 09:33 again removes well sourced text, needed for context and background, with the reason that the remover disagrees with the placement/section heading. Restore.
16. 09:34 I did not add this text, and agree with its removal; I am loathe to cite text to Instagram except in very limited circumstances. This is, so far, the only valid deletion I have encountered in this series.
17. 09:40 style edit that is fine.
18. 09:40 there is, but not worth quibbling.
19. 09:42 no problem.

Overall, I suggest a revert of the entire tendentious series of edits, preserving the last four. Other than those, the article was gutted and de-neutralized, on dubious reasoning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The editor who removed the text also inappropriately invoked BLP, at the same time they recognized there were not sourcing problems. (And left the final image poorly positioned.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned above – and you might have well kept your comments under my text – there were several problems with the text. ALL of my edits carry an edit summary explaining the problems. Your assertion that the article was more neutral before is absurd given the number of complaints about its neutrality, here on Talk, in the last couple of days alone.

Coming back to the problems: they were NOT lack of sourcing, as I wrote above. The problems were instead in two categories: (1) out of scope. I say it once again: this is a biography, please describe the person, their views and action and do not waste the reader's time on long deliberations on the situation in Venezuela. (2) NPOV. Purposeful (certainly) omission of the fact that Guaidós proclamation has no actual basis in the Venezuelan constitution (see ); WP:WEASEL claims that "he has been recognised across the world", long passages describing him as "brave", "kind", "intelligent", etc. (WP:PEACOCK). Please, please do NOT turn Wikipedia into a crude propaganda machine for one or another political fraction in a small South American country. WP:N is one on basic tenets of this project!

I suggest you SandyGeorgia leave the article as is for a few days, allow other editors to comment and contribute. Until now, you've made 454 edits to this article, all in the last two weeks alone – over a third of the total edits. Judging from the article history, the majority of problematic text was introduced after 27 January when you started editing. I believe it will help the quality and WP:N compliance if you gave more room to others to work on the article. Regards, — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Please do take care with allegations about BLP where there are no breaches. Your edit summary reasons for deletion are inadequate and liberally cite guideline and policy pages that don't support your reasoning, so you will need to study those pages and give better reasons for your deletions (eg BLP, MOS, MOS:BIO, and please review LEAD, among others). Throwing out BLP as a reason for deleting very well sourced text is evidence of that trend throughout, and I know guideline and policy pages quite well. You did remove several peacocky but more to the point unnecessary pieces of text that I did not write or add; please justify the rest of your deletions using policy and guideline pages correctly. There are not a number of complaints here on talk about neutrality. (You still have the final image poorly positioned, as Guaido is facing off the page, and you have left Nicolas Maduro undefined in the text-- but that's just the little stuff.) Unless you can better justify your deletions, my summary and suggestion above stands. Your edit summary reasoning is almost always citing guideline and policy incorrectly, and attaching WikiAcronyms like BLP to justify edits is not a good practice with experienced editors who know those pages quite well. I await your justification per my comments above. Have a look at WP:EDITCOUNTITIS as well; hundreds of edits are common for me on any topic, because I document every change I make, no matter how small. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Kashmiri you have also left two named refs empty; please clean up after yourself ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, appreciated; Kashmiri there are still three undefined refs, which you removed. Next please familiarize yourself with WP:SS, WP:LEAD, WP:BLP, MOS:BIO, WP:EDITCOUNTITIS, MOS:IMAGES, and the countless MOS pages you are incorrectly citing or apparently not familiar with. Once you have finished cleaning up after yourself, I will finish cleaning up the rest of the issues you left, probably tomorrow-- you came to a MOS clean, well sourced article, and left it another classic WikiMess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Reverted the article as per SandyGeorgia. Such major changes need to be discussed in talk. Gutting the article to such an extent needs input. Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I already have contributed to talk, I reverted based on the suggestion of SandyGeorgia which is everything minus the first four edits. Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion is not yet finished. Be patient, let it run its course. Give others a chance to contribute. By reverting you are effectively removing the proposed changes from view, makig it more difficult to comment. Note that none of my edits was a policy violation, so there is no immediate need to remove it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Alcibiades979: Please let SandyGeorgia, me and possibly other editors come to a consensus version without being distracted by your edit warring. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: I've reported you for edit warring. Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The edit warring complaint was filed at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kashmiri reported by User:Alcibiades979 (Result: ). EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Warned and closed, now let's move on and get to work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kashmiri:, from this mess you left here on talk, I have corrected your formatting, to result in this (which is still a mess because of your interruption, but at least each piece is now signed and correctly threaded, with bullet points restored).

First. Please do not interrupt a post again; that kind of editing does not further dialogue, it impedes it by making the talk page impossible to follow. You can reference the bullet point numbers in a post of your own, below the original post. Because it appears you are not well versed in talk page threading, I will create separate sub-sections below to deal with each problem you have introduced in to the article.

Second. You have cast aspersions. In the future, please be certain you include a specific diff and a specific quote of the portion of the policy page when you claim another editor has violated policy.

Third. Please read WP:BATTLEGROUND; in the midst of a geopolitical crisis with international ramifications involving the country with the world's largest proven oil reserves (that you dismiss and minimize above with "fraction in a small South American country"), it has been remarkable that discussion on almost every article has evolved without battleground problems, and I hope we can return to same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I have run out of time for now, but I think I have covered most of the significant issues in sections below. Please discuss so we can develop consensus and repair the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Original research on countries recognizing each

In this edit and this one, Kashmiri has introduced original research and weasly text ("around 50"). To my knowledge (as of day before yesterday) most reliable sources named "at least 40 countries" and I have not seen a source that mentioned 50. The impression is given that you went to a Wikipedia article and counted. This is original research. The previous version of the article did not attempt a count, and was much more neutral, in mentioning there were both countries that support and countries that did not, and was cited correctly. If you have a source to back up your vague "around 50", please provide so the text can be made to conform.

I also suggest, for neutrality, that we restore the more general wording that was there before you introduced original research and removed any mention of the countries that continue to recognize Maduro. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Kashmiri you have not responded here; you have left original research in the article which remains unaddressed. I am waiting for your responses.

In terms of the responses you have given so far, please have a look at WP:NPOVHOW and remember that this comes from a policy page; almost every reason you have given so far (below) for deleting well sourced text is that YouDontLikeIt. In the future, please refrain from removing well sourced text unless you have a policy-based reason. I will wait a few more days for you to produce policy-based reasons before beginning to repair the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Technically, you are correct. However, to me this was the safest way to improve the earlier versions: "recognised... by nations and organizations around the world" and "recognized by many governments across the Americas and the world". Both were manipulative (loaded language) and I feared that if I replace them with opposite loaded language "recognised only by a minority of world's governments", some partisan editors will ban me from the article...

So, let's keep it "recognised by some governments and international organizations". — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you; but I still do not understand why you object to balancing it with "recognized by some governments and international organizations and rejected by others". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: As of a few hours ago, we have a source for 50: [24] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done A source for the 50 appeared two days after the edit, and the article has now been updated to reflect that. (There is no longer any mention of the countries that support Maduro, per Kashmiri's edits.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Summary style of Guaido v Maduro support

This edit removed a brief summary of those recognizing Maduro and those recognizing Guaido, with the reasoning that all of that material belongs at 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. First, please read WP:SS. Second, in a situation where each party is legally recognized as the head of nation by differing countries, completely leaving out that material is illogical, and context is lost. Perhaps the information could be more tightly summarized, but the map at least is needed. For context on the relevance, here are a couple of law blogs (written by acknowledged experts, eg Stanford law professor) which may aid in understanding why this matters. [25] [26] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Although the imbalance here has not yet been corrected, I am marking it done. If Kashmiri does not want Maduro's side of the story presented here for balance, I will take yes for an answer, and leave it at that! If there are future concerns about imbalance, point here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

"Guaido government"

This edit has an edit summary "there is no Guaido government". Please read the two law blogs above for context of the international importance of differing countries recognizing different heads of state. There is a Guaido government, in fact, one recognized by more countries than Maduro's. Guaido controls most of the assets in the exterior, probably has most of the recognized ambassadors, and is recognized by more countries, while Maduro controls the military and most state institutions. There seems to be a misunderstanding of the deep problems this situation causes internationally. Perhaps another way of re-phrasing this can be found, but more importantly, anyone editing this article should understand the signficance and relevance of the world division re Guaido/Maduro. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a difference between head of state and head of government. Guaidó has been recognised as the former (even as in Venezuela head of state also formally heads the government).

Otherwise, we need a source that names the members of "Guaidó's government" - for example, his Minister of Foreign Affairs, Home Minister, Minister of Education, Minister of Health, etc. - all those functions listed in the Constitution of Venezuela. In absence we have to assume that Venezuela has no alternative ("Guaidó's") government at this moment — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done I am going to mark this done, not because this has been corrected, but because it is not worth quibbling over one word. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

LEAD

Starting this section for lead issues. In this edit, Kashmiri removed text from the body of the article with the edit summary, Removing what's in the lead section already. Please read WP:LEAD; leads are summaries of articles and there should not be text summarized in the lead that is not included in the body. You have introduced other significant issues in the lead, which I will detail here after we get through a few of the smaller things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

In this edit, you removed the lead summary of the article content, with the edit summary, "Discussion of the overall political situation in Venezuela is out of scope of this biography, and particilarly should not be placed in lede". If not for the "overall political situation in Venezuela", it is unlikely we would even have a bio here on Guaido, and as an interim president in the midst of a geopolitical crisis with international implications, it seems difficult to "identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" without getting into the overall situation. Your reasoning for gutting the lead is not in compliance with our LEAD guideline. Perhaps one way forward is for others to suggest how they might comply with LEAD via alternate text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Lead section, subsection "Context". I suggest you read carefully what is defined as Context. Yes it is fine to mention that the subject contested presidency during the 2019 Venezuelan crisis. It is against the guidelines to turn lede into legal discussion on the (in)validity of the person's claims and the recent history of Venezuela, which was the case. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing in the "Context" section of that page that backs your interpretation. Establishing context requires explaining how Venezuela came to the position of your "50 countries" supporting an interim presidency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

For this purpose Wikipedia has wikilinks. Read again the Context section, esp. the example. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The lead has not been corrected to conform with WP:LEAD, and although there have been multiple documented cases of threats and intimidation, those have been purged from the lead. Kashmiri, I am open to hearing how you would summarize the article contents to agree with WP:LEAD, specifically: "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". We have not summarized the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEAD, the lead section serves to summarise the most important points of the article. It is not a newsreel (MOS again). Minor incidents in a person's lifespan should never clutter the lede. Do you really believe that the first threat received by a young politician in their career is of so much global importance as to become the 2nd paragraph in their official biography??? Get a break, man. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

a) Please suggest how you would like to summarize the contents of the body of the article to the lead. b) I hope you are not conflating typical threats received by typical politicians with threats received by someone in a country where it is well documented what is likely to happen to an opposition politician in the position of Guaido. He just did an interview where he acknowledges the threat and says he is prepared to die for his country. It is a strange world in which that can be considered insignificant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Weasly "interpretation of the constitution"

With this edit, besides the other problems mentioned above, the weasly "interpretation of the constitution" is introduced, and with this and subsequent edits, the reader is left with scant knowledge of why Gauido's claim has legitimacy, as evidenced by the "around 50" countries. Some restoration of text is necessary for context, and to remove the weasel. Please discuss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

We should have an expert source that discusses the relative merits of Gauido's claim. In the original text, it said he became president because the office was vacant, which needs explanation. TFD (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

This edit removed context and explanations needed to understand why there is an broad crisis, dividing the world, with the reasoning that the section is misnamed (!?!?!). This material is needed for context. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a dedicated article on the crisis, so use a wikilink. This article is only a guy's biography. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreeing with TFD, and in the absence of any policy-based reason for this deletion, I will (more briefly) re-add context as I find time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Tovar-Arroyo and Obama

This edit removes context about Tovar-Arroyo's relationiship to Guaido (active in student movement). Also, please se WP:BLPSPS; Tovar-Arroyo writes for El Nacional, which prior to restrictions on press freedom in Venezuela, was one of the top two newspapers in the country (the other being, El Universal-- which press freedom restrictions, El Nacional is no longer hard print). El Nacional is reliable source, and exercises editorial control. The writer is a professional. This editorial complies with BLPSPS. Leaving part of the Tovar-Arroyo text, without explaining the relevance and why he was included, makes no sense.

Separately, I agree with the removal of most of the Obama content-- not because it was not well sourced, but because it has globalization problems (some US media want to push that connection, but it is not even vaguely mainstream in Venezuela). Please discuss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't present this as a problem with newspaper. The problem is that this is a personal opinion of the subject's friend/colleague. Why do you think Wikipedia does not carry statements like "Mr X was a good chap" or "Mrs Y was a bitch" in their bios? — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

It was you who presented it as a problem with the newspaper, by saying an editorial was not an adequate source. I hope you have now read BLPSPS. You have not addressed the problem of missing context. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Context re Tovar-Arroyo subsequently reinstated by another editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Pro-Maduro TSJ

This edit removed the words "pro-Maduro". Kashmiri, perhaps you are not aware of what all reliable sources and human rights organizations say about how Maduro gutted all democratic institutions in the country, and illegally stacked the Supreme Court. Do we really need to take the time to give all of this to you? Please discuss. This is well sourced on the Presidential crisis article, and we can chunk all those citations in here if necessary, but it is pretty much common knowledge and like citing "the sky is blue". Please discuss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the inclusion of the Pro-Maduro adjective. The fact is that there were two TSJs appointed, one before the opposition took control of the AN, and one after that Maduro refused to recognize. The one that passed this is the one that was appointed before the opposition took the AN. So it distinguishes between the two, also without the Pro-Maduro adjective it leaves the reader believing that this wasn't politically motivated. When it was instigated by Maduro's Chief Prosecutor and was politically motivated. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-un/travel-ban-on-venezuelas-guaido-breaches-legal-standards-u-n-expert-idUSKCN1PX1LL https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/01/venezuela-prosecutor-moves-place-travel-ban-guaido-190129172611383.html

Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the TSJ is supportive of the current establishment, and there are many reliable sources that question TSJ's neutrality, objectivity, etc. But (1) the term "pro-Maduro" employs a figure of speech (pars pro toto) which, as used here, basically reduces the political stances to "pro-Maduro" and "anti-Maduro". Note that we don't describe, say, US institutions as "pro-Trump" and "anti-Trump", or French institutions as "pro-Macron" and "anti-Macron": this would be gutter journalism. (2) Because the issue with TSJ is rather complicated, and the term is already linked to its own article, I am of the opinion that it's better to leave any qualification to relevant article; just like the mention of STJ in exile is simply there without a qualifying adjective. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Detained and threatened

This edit removed well sourced and relevant content from the lead, and POV was introduced by re-phrasing to imply criminal actions on Gauido's part. There are numerous instances of the threats and intimidation, and the 45-minute detention is very relevant in establishing why the National Assembly believed it was time for action. Content about the threats and intimidations should be re-included. I hope we don't have to outline here every other instance, as that would overwhelm the article. Please discuss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Why not say "briefly detained?" TFD (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

That works for me ... but we need "briefly detained, threatened, and family intimidated" all worked in ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Per source, claim about threats to family came only from Guaidó, there has been no independent confirmation. Wikipedia cannot carry unverified claims. If at all, they need to be correctly attributed to Guaidó and never stated as sobjective facts. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is the text before you intervened. It is attributed to Guaido. (And actually, the information does not come only from Guaido-- the neighbors and security at the gate reported it as well. If the source given does not mention that, we can add one of the many sources that do.) Coming off of a warning for your editing behavior, you have continued to inappropriately delete well-cited text. The BBC is not primary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is a source explaining that the FAES appearance at his home was confirmed by neighbors and several journalists. (If you don't speak Spanish, you can use a translation tool which approximates the text well enough.) Kashmiri, please revert your deletions of the text related to this incident. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Informe21 is not a RS ("¿Puedo escribir para Informe21? Claro que puedes. Sólo tienes que estar conectado a tu cuenta de Facebook para que puedas participar."[27]). Find compliant sources. It is absolutely correct – and indeed advised – to remove unsourced or badly sourced claims, especially abouts somebody's arrest. Also, you wrote: "There are numerous instances of the threats and intimidation, and the 45-minute detention is very relevant in establishing why the National Assembly believed it was time for action. " – nope, you are not here to establish anything, your only task is to report neutrally what reliable sources say. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

You appear to be correct about Informe21 (good, progress! see how discussion on talk works:), and I am out of time. At any rate, the text was attributed to Guaido. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Once again: the mention in lede was NOT attributed. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

There are multiple instances of threats and intimidation against Guaido, so I have reinstated "threats", without mentioning the incident which you say is only reported by him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Media section

This edit removed an entire section (which I agree is misnamed) that is relevant and well sourced. Cabello threatened Gauido, and attempted to intimidate him with this incident. The relevance of this incident was yet again indicated two days ago, when Cabello re-threatened per same, saying he had told Guaido in the alleged meeting that he was willing to go all the way, and that Guaido had never heard a bullet whistling by his ear. The section could be better named, or the content incorporated better with other threats, but there is no valid reason for removing it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. Nobody will remember about this in a few months in my view. We do not have to report on all media smears. Look at the Trump, Clinton, Macron or similar articles on large-calibre politicians, so you will see that we normally cover only major controversies. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done a) There is nothing about Venezuela and this presidential crisis that remotely resembles "Trump, Clinton, Macron" or any democracy. But ... b) I am going to mark this resolved and not worry about this triviality. The problem with the Guaidochallenge text being repeated in multiple places resulted from a premature merge discussion, so that's that, even though it continues to resurface and has a life as a notable thing. Moving on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Human rights section

This edit removed an entire section on Human Rights, with the edit summary The quote does not talk about human rights. Worse: it implies that the subject has no idea about what human rights are. Leave it out, especially that the entire section is based on a single quote in which the subject uttered the words "human rights". If the quote does not even mention human rights, I am unclear then what your definition of human rights is: "Under Mr. Maduro at least 240 Venezuelans have been murdered at marches, and there are 600 political prisoners". Human rights violations are a large part of the reason for the nomination of an interim president, any president (acting or otherwise) would take a stand on one of the most significant issues facing the country, and I see no valid reason for the removal of this content. Please discuss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I see his complaints about anti-establishment political activists being persecuted. But I read nothing from him about women's right, labour rights, children's rights, disability rights, rights of minorities... All those are burning human rights issues in Venezuela. I therefore do not think that the compaint about protestors being killed makes Guaidó a champion of human rights, and as such a separate heading "Human rights" in this biography is unwarranted. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

So your reasoning for deleting sourced text is that you say he hasn't (yet) addressed all aspects of human rights, or addressed them in that instance? Somehow it seems that mentioning murder and 600 political prisoners takes precedence over the list of things you mention, except the crisis of starving children. Again, you have given no logical or policy-based reason for removing a section about a critical issue, and the stand Guiado has taken on that issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Once again, because you seem not to be able to understand English. His complaint as quoted was not about the human rights situation in Venezuela but about political activists getting killed. Section title was incorrect. There is no evidence the guy has a faintest idea about human rights, or cares about them, so don't create section titles that look too promotional. FYI, just as you wrote that you are an expert in Featured Articles, I am an expert in human rights. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

"because you seem not to be able to understand English", casting aspersions warning number ... what ... four or five now? So, again, you deleted text because you disagree with the section name, when you could have instead re-named the section? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

You should be nicknamed Aspersion Maven. It is daunting having to explain the same thing again and again. Is your tactics geared towards tiring me out? — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Still casting aspersions? My "tactic" is to build consensus and get these issues resolved so we can archive this section and begin to keep up with the scads of reliably sourced information coming out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Just reading this by chance. The main problem addressed here is the difference between social and civil rights, both of which are human rights. However, there's a consensus to refer to civil rights when you use the term "human rights". Even so, all of the rest of the social rights are blatantly violated because of the crisis, even despite all the social policies of the government. The section should be added. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42:, could you suggest a name for the section (one that will allow for future growth of similar material)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Truth be told I think that "Human rights" is the best name. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

But this is not an article on crisis but an article on Juan Guaidó and his views. Until now, there is no source to support a claim that he is a human rights defender. Such a section title would be an unjustified and unsourced interpretation of what was essentially his criticism of violence. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, and a section about human rights can be perfectly including as a subsection of Domestic policy. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: We suggested and recommend this in the Spanish Wikipedia and decided not too because of WP:TOOSOON, which is why we decided to write about the presidency in the article. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Yes, but here biographical articles have their rules. However, the appointments can safely go to 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, a new subsection External representations. It looks like it will take time before the situation clarfies and all of Venezuela's 100 external representatives are (or are not) replaced, so the crisis article would be the most appropriate venue to keep track of it. No point of tarcking external representatives in someone's biography. Also, please note that per source, it was the National Assembly that nominated those people and not Mr Guaidó, making this info even less relevant to his biography.

I agree that as long as there are two or more people with competing claims to a given post recognised internationally, it will be controversial to have an article on the tenure of one of them. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

At this moment I'd like to remind that Guaidó is still the president of the National Assembly and would like to ask if there's a specific section of the Manual of Style regarding the biographies that's being thought of. Best regards. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you check with Venezuelan law (Constitution, or quality secondary sources) whether it is the Venezuelan National Assembly who nominates representatives or NA President alone? It's a huge difference in law. I understand from the quoted source it is the former, and my objection stands. For guidance on biographies, you might like to consult WP:BIOGRAPHY. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure, Wikisource has a translation of the Venezuelan constitution. Like I mentioned, but I might have needed to brush up terms, the National Assembly authorizes the appointment of the heads of diplomatic missions (Article 187, 14), while the president designate them with authorization from the National Assembly (Article 236, 15)

Would calling the section just "Humanitarian" solve this semantic splitting of hairs problem? At any rate, Kashmiri, please do not continue to delete content because you don't like the section head, rather discuss how to correct what you perceive as a problem. Also, if you have problems with respect to guideliness from WikiProjects or the Manual of Style, please specify specifically which, and keep in mind that policy trumps guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

As the reason given for deleting cited text was that it was an in a wrongly named section, and there was no consensus on what to call the section, I have reinstated the reliably sourced text in other sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Balance

This edit removed text that was there precisely for balance (to give Maduro's side of the story). Deleting it creates POV. Please discuss ways to address that there are two sides of the story; this summary sentence seemed fine to me, and the reasoning for deleting is not something I understand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a wrong place to present sides of a story. This is a guy's biography. Take the discussion about sides of a story to the correct article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

All articles should be balanced. Giving Maduro a one-line response is not undue weight, and not presenting that there are two sides of the story creates POV. Kashmiri, please engage the talk page with policy-based responses, not opinions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. The only Maduro thing should go into a biography are his comments about the article subject. Maduro's policies and controls in Venezuela is out of scope. I can't get rid of the impression that you are not getting what a biography is. Look for example at nominated GA Yasin al-Hashimi or Jacob Rees-Mogg (two bios taken randomly from here): not a single sentence in both ledes discusses other matters than the subject; and almost every sentence in both articles describes the subject. The wider contexts remain, correctly, only wikilinked to those biographies.

You in turn – and maybe some other editors – are trying to turn this bio into a re-analysis of the Venesuelan crisis, duplicating the content elsewhere. That's wrong, and that's not what bios are. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And you would do well not to cite Good Articles (a meaningless categorization of articles approved by one editor) to someone who ran the Featured Article process for years. Please stick to the argument at hand. By leaving out any mention that there are two sides to the story of why Guaido was named interim president, you introduce POV. NPOV applies to all articles, even bios. One sentence does not turn this article into a rehash of another article. Further, Maduro's position that Guaido is part of a US-backed coup is, in your words, a "comment about the article subject". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Maduro's position on Guaidó is relevant. The establishment's control of state assets is not. In every country, state assets are controlled by - guess who - the state while the head of government controls the government. As much as it might be nice to note this in the Venezuela article, this obvious fact is utterly irrelevant to Guaidó's life story. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Moreover, I justified all my edits in edit summaries, no point of repeating everything here unless indeed controversial. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Marking resolved, if Kashmiri does not want to balance the article with Maduro's side of the story, I will "take yes for an answer", and agree to leave that out. If there are future complaints about imbalance, see here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

BLP

Kashmiri, you have claimed here and at AN3 that the article had BLP violations. Please state below the specific text from the article you believe to be in breach of BLP, and cite the specific portion of WP:BLP which you believe backs your claim. We can't fix something without understanding how you are interpreting BLP (in what appears to be a novel interpretation, to me at least). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

1. Verifiability/sources: the article had some unacceptable sourcing, e.g., "facts" were "sourced" to media interviews by the article subject or to Instagram accounts (in violation of WP:BLPSPS). Some have been removed. Similarly, per WP:BLPPUBLIC, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article", but for intance the passage about "threats to family" was only sourced to... the article subject (quoted in the media).
2. Style: "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone". But her, we had such wording as "Guaidó's message of hope", "A defiant Maduro", etc. Most have been removed.
3. "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources": Unfortunately, article contained a lot of praise which was sourced to people affiliated with the person. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Kashmiri, but you did not answer the question. Your response contains generalities that reflect your opinion and are not backed by facts. The request was: Please state below the specific text from the article you believe to be in breach of BLP, and cite the specific portion of WP:BLP which you believe backs your claim. We can't fix something without understanding how you are interpreting BLP (in what appears to be a novel interpretation, to me at least). As an example, the threat to his family was attributed to Gauido.[28] Obliged, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Please don't ask me to waste my time on what I have already done in edits and edit summaries. BTW, the threat to family as described in the lede before I removed it[29] was not attributed to anybody but stated as a fact. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

You are not obligated to respond to anything, but you have gutted an article with no consensus for your edits, and if you choose not to present logical or policy-based reasons for your edits, of course, the policy-based text can be re-instated. Conclusion: do not accuse other editors of violating BLP, unless you want to look into ArbCom findings of casting of aspersions. You have not produced a BLP vio, you have not explained your position with a concrete example, and if you accuse an editor again, you are casting aspersions after multiple notifications and attempts to reason with you and understand your logic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Your repeated threats of taking me to ArbCom are WP:INTIM. Please stop immediately and focus on the matter, including your problematic editing. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Please don't attribute words to me that I have not said/typed. I have not "threatened to take you to ARBCOM"; we are nowhere near ArbCom territory. I did and do suggest you look into ArbCom findings on "casting of aspersions", so that you will understand why you shouldn't accuse editors of something without evidence. ANd now, I really am out of time. I am happy to see that you were right about one thing above (Informe21), and hope that you will begin to use discussion and consensus-building as your primary editing method. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Marking done, addressed, no instance of BLP violation provided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Citations and named refs

Kashmiri please leave the citation style and named refs as they were; you caused many refs to go missing, and the bot that recovers them appears to be no longer working (and can't recover them when you change the name). Quotes around ref names are required when the ref name has spaces; they are not required when there are no spaces, and I prefer to have less junk to edit around in citations (like quotations, empty parameters, and long lists of authors-- all things which make it harder to edit). Please stop changing named refs to include quote marks when they are not necessary.

I have now repaired the named refs that you did not replace. When you make significant deletions to an article, after you are done, please scroll to the bottom of the page, to the references section, and make sure you have left all sources intact. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. The Visual Editor should have done it automatically, not sure why some refs were not updated. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done, thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Casting aspersions

Kashmiri, you insinuated at AN3 that I had improperly archived material on this page. Please indicate precisely which sections in talk archives you believe are not resolved or indicate a neutrality problem or should not have been archived, so I can restore them. In a very active article with ongoing international events, my goal is to keep this page manageable. Please do not cast aspersions without evidence, and provide a diff when doing so. ArbCom has a lot to say about editors who do that. I am happy to unarchive anything you believe is not resolved, or we can start a new section here, linking to the archived section.

References

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I replied to you already: you claimed there had been no problems raised with NPOV, and I pointed out that they had but in sections archived by you. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I have asked three times, and you still have provided no specific example; please provide so that I may correct this by un-archiving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Marking done, no instance of inappropriate or premature archival identified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing problematic editing

Kashmiri, you were just warned about edit warring, yet you have immediately resumed the same kind of problematic editing outlined above, without seeking consensus or answering direct questions. Please begin to work collaboratively and to seek consensus, or admin attention will be needed here. For example, here, you delete text cited to the BBC, calling it "primary". You have a good deal of problems outlined above to resolve; please do pay attention to these issues before introducing others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Read the title of the BBC article. Even article author makes sure this is stated as Guaidó's opinion and not as a fact. So, the actual source of the information is a primary source. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

And by the way, I will appreciate if you try to be less patronising. It is no pleasure to interact with someone who can't stop commenting on my behaviour. Unless you want me to start the same towards you, but be warned that I can be very nasty. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

That is a weird confession to make, but thanks for sharing. I see tonight that you are still reverting edits rather than discussing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Were the additions I reverted discussed beforehand? No? Then they can be challenged by anybody. Read WP:BRD. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Continues (Personnel)

• This edit (followed by this one) remove cited text, saying "This one is out of scope of this biography. Use biographies of other heads of state for guidance." WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and a quandry in that in other edits, Kashmiri, you say Guaido does not have a "government",[30] but here, you ask that he be compared to other heads of state, acknowledging him as a head of state. Guaido's interim situation is unique enough that I disagree that comparing him to any other head of state article should apply here. I believe this content is appropriate here, belongs here, and if/once Guaido has a full(er) cabinet appointed, a sub-article could then be created. For now, Wikipedia's readers will not benefit from tying to sort text in an article where they cannot tell who's who among the people working with/for the interim president.

  Also, could you please discuss rather than using reverts and edit summaries as a primary editing method? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

  By the way, Presidency of Ronald Reagan has sections on (at least) Administration, and Judicial Appointments. Presidency of Barack Obama has a section on Personnel. Those two, as examples, have sub-articles because their main bios are large Featured Articles that used WP:SS (Summary style) to keep the size of the main article manageable (see WP:SIZE for when and when not to create sub-articles). (Presidency of Donald Trump also has a Personnel section, but I cannot comment on the appropriateness there, as I did not work on it at FAC or FAR as I did Reagan and Obama.) There is no need (yet) for Guaido to have a sub-article, and considering his position could be temporary, there is no reason to create one (yet). But all three I checked have personnel-- when articles get too large, text can be split using summary style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Then create an article Presidency of Juan Guaidó. Like the two you mentioned, it will no longer be a biography but a description of a period in politics. There is no "Appointments" section in the biographical articles Barack Obama or Donald Trump.

I am writing this for 10th time: do NOT turn someone's biography into a politcal analysis of the country they live in. You surely wouldn't like if someone did this to your biography.

Also, try to understand what I wrote when suggested looking at the content of articles of others heads of state. No, my dear, being a head of state does NOT imply having a government, there are and have been hundreds of heads of state without an own government; especially interim heads of state. And my advice wasn't even about this but about writing style. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Kashmiri, I don't get it. You've done thousands of edits on Wiki, so there are tons of pages which interest you. I understand that you're probably upset about getting a formal warning, but why continue with the reversions and deletions? Especially going against multiple registered editors. I mean you realize that by doing this you're increasing the probability of getting reported again, and no I won't do it, it's a pain in the ass to do, and work got suddenly more hectic. But still, why not just let it go? Alcibiades979 (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, why? Because Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project. Ongoing political developments are often highly charged emotionally, so it's good for the project if someone sane keeps an eye at relevant articles to prevent WP to become a political propaganda tool. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Kashmiri, I will explain again (please pardon the repetition).

1. This article as of today (12 February) is about 20 KB of readable prose (about 3,000 words) per Dr Pda's trusty prose size script.
2. WP:SIZERULE is a guideline explaining when articles should be split. (This article should not be split.)
3. I gave you three samples of presidential articles above (Reagan, Obama and Trump). ALL three have separate presidential articles, because content had to split because of size.
4. ALL of those articles have personnel sections.
5. (And even at that, this is still an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument). The content is appropriate here, in what is still a very small article, and whether Guaido will ever be fully "president" is unclear.

Summary, presidential articles have personnel sections, this article is too small to split as of now, and the content is appropriate and useful here. Separately, as time evolves, it will become more clear whether we even need a Presidential article for Guaido. He has not said he will run for President, and if elections are held within months, depending on outcome, this article will grow or not. Aside: imagine the problems that would unfold just now if we were to create Presidency of Juan Guaido, when some deny it even is a presidency?

Alcibiades979 it is not recommended to question anyone's reason for participating at an article (although I do understand your asking Kashmiri why he continues to edit war only days after being warned by EdJohnston). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Why are you inventing stuff? the "Presidency of" series articles were not "split [off] because of size" as you claim (no split is there in page histories!) but because of a different subject. Much like Victorian era is a separate article from Queen Victoria.

Just take a look at the different Wikiprojects these respective articles belong to. E.g., the Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, etc. articles are governed by the rules of Wikiproject Biography; but this is not the case for the "Presidency of..." series.

Also, I am sort of fed up with having to repeat again and again: this is a biographical article, biographical articles are governed by the rules of respective Wikiprojects, and no amount of your quarelling about article size is going to change it. So, please stop forcing non-bio stuff into this article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

May I, pretty please, remind WP:CIV? --Jamez42 (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Kashmiri, you appear to be confused about the functions of WikiProjects, and the differences between policy and guideline. Basically, you are deleting text repeatedly without policy-based reasons, and using your interpretation of guideline pages as if they were rules, and often even the guideline pages do not say what you interpret them to say. So, yes, you may have to explain yourself until you find a policy-based reason for deleting text you don't like. Presidents of the US have separate Presidency articles, with Personnel, because the articles are too large for all of that info to be in the bio. That is not the case here. You have not given a valid reason for deleting personnel helping Guaido. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Per feedback here from Jamez42, Alcibiades979 and myself-- and in the absence of any policy-based reason for removing appointments made by Guaido-- I have a) consolidated mention of Personnel from the Foreign affairs section to the Personnel section; b) added Smolansky; and c) added back a trimmed version of the previously deleted text.[31] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

PDVSA (personnel)

Putting another Personnel deletion here (nothing in WP:CRYSTAL allows for the deletion of this sourced material). [32] [33] [34] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Smolansky

Smolansky is in exile too and I understand that he has positions abroad; I think one of them is being the president of a comission of the OAS. I was meaning to ask if this should be added. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Jamez42, you will need to wade through the long thread above and enter your opinions on each. As of now, the appointments made by Guaido-- and recognized by multiple governments throughout the world-- have been removed by Kashmiri. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Ah, I think I misspoke, Smolansky has had this position before Guaidó took oath. In any case, while I'm at it, I could take a look at that discussion. Best regards. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: I think this is what you were after on Smolansky.[35]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: It is, sorry for not looking for the source, but I thought about asking first. Thanks! --Jamez42 (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, once the Personnel situation is corrected, Smolansky will be part of that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Minor discussion about phonetics 2

@Bankster: I don't know what is the right criteria here. Please tell me why the "standard" Spanish pronunciation should prevail in the article and not the Venezuelan pronunciation? --MaoGo (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@MaoGo:: the Venezuelan pronunciation is considered to be a dialect of the Spanish language, as mentioned in Venezuelan Spanish. In all scenarios, when mentioning Guaidó in any context, his name is pronounced with the received pronunciation of the Spanish language. Thus, the /x/ standardised sound intended for the letter J prevails over the dialectal /h/ sound, per Help:IPA/Spanish. This varies depending on the media outlets' country of origin: for example, Colombian and US American media may pronounce Guaidó's name similar to the Venezuelan pronunciation, while Argentine, Peruvian and Spaniard outlets might use the standard pronunciation. --Bankster (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bankster: I think the pronunciation note is to know how it should be pronounced in the local scenario. Would it help if we put "Venezuelan Spanish" in the pronunciation note? --MaoGo (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@MaoGo: It would be fine for me. Go ahead. --Bankster (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bankster: thanks, sorry for wasting your time with this, let me see what can we do with the template. Truly, I do not know if we have a guideline for this. --MaoGo (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

If we don't, it should be brought up, maybe, at WP:ENGVAR, which deals with variations of English-- where do we deal with variations of Spanish? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)