Jump to content

Talk:Juan Guaidó/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Neutrality tag

@Kashmiri: @David Tornheim: What are the main concerns in the article? There is a lot to read in that bias talk page section, so could you place a summarized list so we can all work on this?----ZiaLater (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Juan_Guaidó#Bias_not_yet_fixed (permalink). --David Tornheim (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
There has been a lot of revision since the banner was raised, would you at least acknowledge that it is in a better state? What would it take for you to remove the banner or at least get a softer template(the infobox discussion has gone stale)? --MaoGo (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@David Tornheim: So it seems like most issues are resolved. It has been added that he "declared himself" acting president. It has been added that he was previously "unknown". The concern about recognition should not be included in the lede as drawing up sides between who recognizes who only feeds into the polarization of further edits. We can simply state that "X number of governments recognize Guaido", linking that statement to an article going into more detail regarding his recognition. Any other suggestions?----ZiaLater (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Cmonghost raised a problem with the sources after revising (starting to revise?) the article and David brought back the banner to say it is just not a lead issue based on that. It seems like each revision that somebody clears up leads to a restauration of the banner. Like it happened after your revision, Zia. --MaoGo (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, "Tags should be added as a last resort". We have all made numerous revisions. If these revisions are not sufficient, we should bring this to Wikipedia:NPOV noticeboard to get a more neutral set of eyes on the article. Having more users and opinions invovled can help make this article more neutral, if necessary. ----ZiaLater (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Please feel free to post at WP:NPOV notice board--as a neutral post. I disagree that the issues are resolved. We already had Jamez42 trying to take out the self-declared item here less than two hours ago. He is also edit-waring at another Venezuela article (Talk:Crisis_in_Venezuela#Socialism_not_to_blame (permalink). Although, there have been some improvements, it is premature to say this article has settled down. Besides, the first sentence and the infobox give the misleading impression that he is the president of Venezuela--something that hardly any WP:RS says. Also, the lede does not conform to WP:LEDE--it is not a summary of the article. Finally, it is not just the lede that is a problem. This article--which did not exist last year--appears to be an advertisement for Guaido. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
What is with the article being new? David please, the only points you are raising are about the lead and you have not been always clear. I remember that all of this started with very enigmatic edit summaries Talk:Juan_Guaidó#Bias, to which I have not seen a full response or an apology for not being clear with those at the beginning. Most of your issues are lead issues, and even when the whole article is revised and most problems fully solved you keep saying that those solved are just "some"? and crisis in Venezuela is just another article. Please everybody, let us bring this to the noticeboard to bring it to a conclusion. Maybe Zia is the best to bring this to the noticeboard? --MaoGo (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I'll make it clear: The article does not reflect what is in the reliable sources and does not follow our rule of WP:NPOV. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I can make draft of the LEDE and Infobox of what I would consider to be NPOV, which reflects what is in the sources, and mention any further concerns about the rest of the article. One of the major problems is that I have often found that what is in the article does not reflect what is in the source cited--things are constantly cherry-picked and even misrepresented entirely. I've seen quite a bit of WP:OR on top of that about interpreting and quoting from Section 233. That's not acceptable. We also should hear from some of the other editors who have expressed concerns with neutrality, such as Kashmiri, Huldra, Carrite (who said [1]), and other editors that are not SPAs who are singularly focused on adjusting the Venezuela political articles. You need to give these other editors time to respond. They are not singularly focused on Venezuela. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
A draft could be very helpful. But again you say that the lead is not the whole issue. Make the draft, we judge on it, we gain consensus on what is ok, and then we say that the lead is good and move the template to a specific section (or scrap it completely).--MaoGo (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I am putting the plan for an NPOV draft on hold for now per [2]. If I do resume work, I'll let you know. In the meantime, I will review the WP:BODY more carefully to identify concerns I have with WP:NPOV and WP:OR. I plan to compile a list of multiple concerns rather that posting single concerns one at a time: I believe this will be more effective at explaining certain patterns of bias I have noticed. Please keep in mind that I do have other work on Wikipedia and have other stuff going on my life--sometimes I take long breaks from Wikipedia. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@David Tornheim: Please address content and not users. Claiming edit warring and single-purpose accounts borders personal attacks and makes the discussion harder. Please also remember that editing only within a single broad topic, such as Venezuela, does not mean the editor is an SPA per WP:SPATG. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @MaoGo: To be clear, I only revised a few sections of the article: sections 3-4.1 inclusive and section 8. In those sections alone I found many problems with sourcing (text cherry-picking from or distorting sources), notability (unimportant or promotional information, such as information from Guaidó's personal Instagram that doesn't seem to have been reported elsewhere at all), and weight (long block quotations from a single opinionated source; entire paragraph based on a single op-ed), which I tried to fix where possible. I don't think that the tag should be removed until the full article has been checked and similar work has been done throughout. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your work, at least you can point out to sections and specific examples. I still think we can address templates by sections and discuss it together. The more we can point to specific issues the better. --MaoGo (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Well, the lede was updated to mirror the article. If you have wording or NPOV recommendations, go ahead and make those changes to my edits.----ZiaLater (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

NPOV noticeboard - POV check

I have brought this to the noticeboard for a POV check (see Wikipedia:NPOV noticeboard). I recommend waiting for responses from uninvolved users before editing on the noticeboard so we can see what improvements they suggest. The request is broad so that the entire article can be evaluated for NPOV issues. Hopefully we can resolve these issues soon and thanks to those who have been trying to maintain encyclopedic standards on this article. ----ZiaLater (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for starting the thread. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks also. It will be good to see new editors. I may take a break from this article to give new editors space to comment and make appropriate changes to the article. I will be happy to answer any questions from new editors about my concerns at Talk:Juan_Guaidó#Bias_not_yet_fixed (permalink), who may not be familiar with the WP:NPOV issues that have been repeatedly raised at this talk page. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I saw the post at NPOVN and have made some changes to the lead. I have left in the "death threat" clause for now, though I will note that US politicians backing Guaidó have also made death threats against Maduro [3][4]. I think we need to note in the lead that Guaidó's declaration that he is acting president of Venezuela was made with the support of the United States. -Darouet (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Wow, @ZiaLater: how can we justify stating that Guaidó actually is the acting president of Venezuela, not that he has merely stated as much with the support of some governments? He does not actually have control of the government or country. -Darouet (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Can we scrap the infobox completely? If not more user will come to mess up with it.--MaoGo (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Also now there is no line in the lead to indicate that countries of the world are divided in the situation, with 50 and the OAS considering Guaidó the acting president. --MaoGo (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Why Guaido's invocation of the constitution has been taking out of the lead?? --MaoGo (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

That the constitution is not named in the whole article is a serious POV issue.--MaoGo (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I just noticed this, it is very important. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Why is mention of the constitution so "important" and its absence a POV issue? I'm no arguing for or against it. I just want to understand your motivations and feelings that is so "important". --David Tornheim (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
It is in the RS and gives a legal basis to the claim (legitimate or not). He could be just a citizen calling to be president, but that is not the case, he is the president of the parliament and if the contestation of Maduro's elections are well founded (we are not here to decide that), he should be able to invoke the constitution as he did to make a transitional government. That's what gives force to his movement, and that's why there is a presidential crisis. --MaoGo (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@MaoGo and David Tornheim: I've just added in a sentence to the lead that mentions his position on the constitution. -Darouet (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Darouet: thanks for understanding. Please could we be more explicit with "backed by the US", I still think that "recognized by 50 countries" is best wording. He didn't declare himself because he was "backed", countries backed Guaidó after swearing oath as acting president. --MaoGo (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@MaoGo: I don't support listing that number here because many countries (actually, more countries) have not recognized Guaidó. Listing the number that recognize him, as opposed to the number who don't, editorially nudges the reader towards support as well, which is inappropriate.
Regarding the "backed by the US," the text I've added doesn't imply that he took these steps merely because he had US backing. However, Trump declared his support for Guaidó only hours later, in a move that was clearly discussed ahead of time, and it's fair to say that without US backing Guaidó would probably be sitting in a prison cell in Venezuela. -Darouet (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@Darouet: according to the sources we have, about 20 directly support Maduro, 20 are neutral, and the rest has not given an official statement of support. The Lima Group countries answered very rapid too, why the US should be the only one in the lead. On the issue of "backing", we want to be careful to avoid all these problem raised in the talk, "backed" is vague and we should be careful to imply something untrue. --MaoGo (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Also now the references in the lead have to be rearranged correctly. The first ref of Independent is not adding anything to the first paragraph, because it was used to state the other countries support for Guaidó, I will check the others.--MaoGo (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL. I would argue that it is undue to mention only the US among the countries; groups with similar geopolitical importance, such as the Lima Group and the European Union, also backed Guaidó. It should be mentioned that the OAS declared Maduro to be illegitimate. In my opinion, to prevent these discussions altogether, it's better just to mention the number of countries or only to state the support of the countries. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Simply listing the number of countries and organizations that support Guaido is POV.
Simply counting countries is also a problem if you are "keeping score": Let's keep in mind some countries are much bigger than others. China--a supporter of Maduro--has a population four times that of the U.S. Two thirds of countries of the world have a population less than 1% of China.[5] Obviously minuscule countries can hardly be considered equals to a behemoth like China. Additionally, the U.N. recognizes Maduro.
I would be more comfortable using language like what we see at 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis: "with the nation and the world divided in support for Nicolás Maduro or Juan Guaidó." (but without this map, which ZiaLater created, which has major errors, e.g. Mexico, India.) --David Tornheim (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Which is why I'm proposing to not list them (Latest edit). --Jamez42 (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Maybe we should go back to the original wording:
AP News reported that "familiar geopolitical sides" had formed in the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, with allies Russia, China, Iran, Syria, and Cuba supporting Maduro, and the US, Canada, and most of Western Europe supporting Guaidó.[1] His position on holding the acting presidency is based on an interpretation of Article 233 of the Constitution of Venezuela.
--MaoGo (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Vasilyeva, Nataliya (24 January 2019). "Venezuela crisis: Familiar geopolitical sides take shape". AP News. Retrieved 25 February 2019.
The reason we mention the U.S. first is that is what reliable sources do. Note the phrasing in Bloomberg: "When Donald Trump recognized Juan Guaido as the rightful leader of Venezuela in January, 50 governments quickly lined up behind the American president in an impressive show of Western unity."[6]
The reason we should not say Guaido is the president of Venezuela is that most sources refer to him as a claimant. Now Guaido's position is unusual. Most claimants are legitimate leaders who were deposed, rather than legitimate leaders who have never held office. But reliable sources routinely refer to the usurpers as president or leader of the country, even before they gain any recognition.
TFD (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The US was the first to recognize Guaidó, it's listed first in any article about who supports Guaidó, often without naming other countries. See here [7] "with the support of the United States and some major Latin American nations". See also here [8] "The United States recognized Guaido shortly after he assumed the interim presidency and has been one of his most vocal international supporters." The US led the effort, the US has been the most vocal; I don't see any non-POV reason for its role not to be mentioned in the lead. (I'll add that it's downright laughable to suggest that the Lima Group or any of its member nations has anything close to "similar geopolitical importance" to the United States of America, and the EU doesn't have a place in this paragraph because the group of EU countries that recognized him didn't do so until February, i.e., he didn't declare himself president with their backing) — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree to disagree. David the one that brought this Neutrality template, has argued that this page has US bias, putting the US as the sole important country to name here is the same, it is POV and that's why bringing this to the noticeboard could help. Border countries like Colombia and Brazil are increasingly relevant. The 23 February clashes happened between Venezuela and those two countries! Europe is also as "geopolitically important" as Europe too. Avoiding a phrase about recognition of those countries is careless. --MaoGo (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Again, the passage we're discussing here is:
Guaidó declared he was acting president on 23 January 2019, citing the Venezuelan constitution and with the backing of __________.
I explained why Europe doesn't fit in the paragraph in question already—the EU nations that recognized Guaidó did so well after his declaration that he was president. The same reasoning is true for Colombia and Brazil: the 23 February clashes that you're saying make them relevant have nothing to do with the 23 January announcement.
I'm not sure what your point about the noticeboard is. We did bring it to the noticeboard, an uninvolved editor made some changes to decrease POV—including centering the role of the US just as reliable sources do (see TFD's comment above)—and several of them were immediately reverted; now we're talking about it. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Ok let's make this clear, there are two issues 1) we are avoiding mentioning other countries completely, why? (raised before all this [9]) 2)We are only recalling that there are other countries that supported Guaidó on the 23, with the word "Backing", that can imply to past to the events which is not true, and should be avoid. The uninvolved editor has not improved the situation. Again Europe didn't agree as a whole until a pair of weeks before but countries like France, Germany and UK gave their preliminary support on that day (these are geopolitically important countries).--MaoGo (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
To (1): there is no space to list all involved countries and the US is by far the most important one—most important geopolitically, first to recognize and first mentioned in many articles, and most vocal—per reliable sources. If you have sources that give France, the UK, Brazil, etc. as much weight as the US, now would be the time to show them. To (2): if the problem is with "backing", then change "backing"; that's not an argument for removing the US. I'll note though that the US recognized Guaidó within minutes; there's very little chance that they didn't coordinate in advance, as noted here by AFP: [10] — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
(also, I dispute your claim that "the uninvolved editor has not improved the situation". To the contrary, their edits have greatly improved the lead from a NPOV perspective and are very well-reasoned. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC))
Paraguay recognized Guaidó as fast if not before the US. If there is no place to explain then the best is to explain it elsewhere and give a more general statement. Again we are giving more focus to one day than to the entire crisis. Bias can go both ways, let us try to find a phrase that is in the middleground, precise, and gives a larger overview. --MaoGo (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Paraguay? Are you serious? Have you even been reading my comments? Has Paraguay been described as one of the leading, most vocal, or most geopolitically important supporters of Guaidó? I'd love to see the source if so. It is not biased to accurately describe the leading, most vocal and most geopolitically important supporter of Guaidó, the US, as such. Attempting to find a middleground on issues where there is none leads to false balance. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Please answer this question: do you dispute that the United States has been the leading international supporter of Guaidó? If so, please explain why, ideally including reliable sources as other participants in this discussion have. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
The US is indeed a leading supporter of Guaidó. But that's not enough for the lead. The Lima Group and Europe are also leading supporters of Guaidó.--MaoGo (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
The Lima Group is not as geopolitically important as the United States. Only a few European nations recognized Guaidó shortly after he declared that he was president, not Europe as a whole. We've been over this already.
I'll note here also that you still haven't answered my question. I asked if you disputed that the US was the leading supporter of Guaidó, i.e., the most prominent, vocal nation backing him. You said that the Lima Group and Europe are also important but did not say whether you disputed that the US is the leading supporter. This bears heavily on the question we're discussing so an answer would be useful here. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not disputing anything. I'm arguing that the situation needs more context.--MaoGo (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed that clause entirely, I don't see why it's important if we aren't noting who it was (the preponderance of RS list names of countries, particularly the United States). There is already information in the lead about his support from other governments. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

This looks a lot better. I personally do not agree with adding geopolitical sides to the lede and we should just leave the recognition portions in the body. Though some sources like mentioning the recognition as a polarizing point, I do not think it benefits an encyclopedic article. The lede is very good for a controversial article though. Thanks to everyone for coming together to make this work.----ZiaLater (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree this looks better [11]. My only concern is still the word backing, but this is minor (I have now edited it as this word seems not to be the point of disagreement). Can we all at least agree on the current version of the lead not being POV template worthy (aside from the infobox)? @David Tornheim:?--MaoGo (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
No. Why are you so eager to remove the template before the problems are resolved?
Here is why I answer 'no' at this time:
(1) The article is not stable.
(2) Other editors who have noticed the POV have not yet commented and are not even invited to comment here. Why is it so urgent for you to declare the POV resolved, when you have not even given them a chance to comment?
(3) Although Darouet made significant improvements to make just the lead more NPOV, some of his/her improvements have been reverted back to the POV version, e.g. [12],[13],[14]
(4) I am not sure why you are asking ZiaLater who has made POV edits (and arguments) like this [15]. In that edit language is added to say that the National Assembly declared Guaido president, when it was Guaido who proclaimed/declared himself president according to the RS (Talk:Juan_Guaidó#Self-proclaimed (permalink))
(5) Your own arguments to focus on the countries that support Guaido while omitting mention of those that are opposed is not helping: [16]. [17],[18]. I acknowledge that in this earlier comment you were willing to include countries that are opposed to Guaido: [19].
(6) You and Zialater both support inclusion of the map which has Mexico and India wrong. (See Talk:Responses_to_the_2019_Venezuelan_presidential_crisis#Map_errors (permalink))
(7) As Darouet correctly observed at the NPOV noticeboard, this article is filled with puffery--not just the lede.
This article is not even close to NPOV. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Sincerely, my comment was not trying to scrap the template now, I agree we need more outsiders feedback and solve the infobox issue, but I wish that the usual users (including me) to go beyond the first three paragraphs of the lead. If we can all agree on a version of those paragraph then POV check can be moved down to focus on other parts of the article.
  • (1) Sure, that's why we are trying to come up with a version we can all agree.
  • (2) Too much time has passed with the template on and the usual users (including you and me) are making this talk page harder to read.
  • (3) I have not been involved in any of the reverts. I brought my issues here. And those do not concern the lead.
  • (4)Asking Zia what? Maybe Zia can answer that. Is that still affecting the lead?
  • (5)The original wording was not the best but it was better, Cmonghost just eliminated the countries from the lead. I don't think that that is a good idea, as said before. But do you agree to that?
  • (6)We can discuss the map later. Also in its own article talk page.
(7 and conclusion)A lot of modification happened with the lead since Darouet. If we can agree in the current version [20] we can move on to other issues. And let us avoid doing numbered lists, it can make the thread hard to read. --MaoGo (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
@David Tornheim: My "POV" edit was me trying to understand the new wording of the lede. It is true that the AN declared that Guaidó was acting president before Guaidó made such declarations (there may have been a leak or two, too). However, it is also true that Guaido declared himself acting president as well, so we have two truths. However we want to word it, I will let us all decide. Just please assume good faith, editing Venezuela-related articles is taxing on every user involved and that is why I think only a few continue to edit such articles on a regular basis. Thanks for your help.----ZiaLater (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Well the wording is still off, I tried to fix it [21], but aside on how it is written I do not see major issues on the content of the lead.--MaoGo (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment: CALM DOWN. The idea was to bring the NPOV noticeboard so they could give a comment on the article. But since there are reverts back and forth, it is impossible for anybody coming in to know which is the version they should assess. Specially the lead, it is a mess of reverts, the lead should be blocked (I do not know if it possible) to some version (I have proposed one already [22], see this one also [23]). If we can all agree to block it at some version (like it or not) (and revert every users that tries to modify this version) then we can discuss here what we do not like about that version and leave a third party user decide. Unless somebody comes up with a lead that agrees with all by bold move, we will continue entangling the talk, edit warring, and the POV template won't move. --MaoGo (talk) 08:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@MaoGo: I would be fine with temporarily ceasing editing at ZiaLater's last version. I still think it has problems (specifically, it unduly deemphasizes the US), but those problems are currently under good faith discussion below. The recent edits by Ballers19 on the other hand are hard to interpret as anything other than seeking to impose a particular POV without discussing on talk. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ballers19: a word from your part is needed. My proposal here is to remove the template, in order to do that we may agree first in a version of the lead, discuss why or why it does not work, and hope for consensus and maybe the advise of a third party. The next step, is to continue with the rest of the article until we can agree that the POV template can be removed for good. --MaoGo (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

Just because I have noticed some mentions in the talk page and some ALLCAPS comments, I will create this section to make decisions about the infobox. I will make two entries below to help organize this process.----ZiaLater (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Should we have an infobox? This is for those who are concerned about having an infobox included in the article. Please comment below.----ZiaLater (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I had not a strong position on the infobox. But if I have to choose I prefer agreeing to not have one. If we can agree on this, every time that somebody adds the infobox again, we can say it was decided that it was best to leave it out. My way to see this is that it will keep bringing problems to the article. --MaoGo (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Should we include "Acting president" (or something similar) in the infobox? For those concerned about the neutrality of placing the term "acting president" in the infobox. Please comment below.----ZiaLater (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I don't have a strong opinion on whether the infobox should exist, but I strongly oppose including this controversial information in the infobox, where it may be read as a statement of fact or an endorsement. Infoboxes are not the place to explain these complicated issues.
I also note that this has already been discussed here, and as far as I can tell, while a consensus betweem the shortest possible version and the medium version was not clear, only one editor supported the long version (which is the only version that included "Acting president"). I'm not sure we need to rehash it again. Striking this as I may have misinterpreted what people meant by "alternative long version" (I thought it meant the intermediate version, but it looks like I was mistaken). — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I will say though that the current version is very similar or identical to the Version 1 in that RfC, which was clearly not supported. If we do include the information, the "disputed" text should be moved up to the same level as the position itself, as in the Version 2 from the RfC. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • oppose We all know that the U.N. recognizes Maduro as president, and only one-forth of the countries of the world support Guaido, while major countries like Russia, China, India, and smaller countries like Mexico and Turkey continuing to recognize Maduro. If you want to say "partially recognized President", that might work. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with partially recognized president if it seems to solves the issue, if not I would prefer to not have an infobox to avoid dealing with infoboxes issues again.--MaoGo (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Assuming that we decide agree to include the infobox, support. Showing the position and including the "disputed" subtitle is the best way to represent a balanced point of view of the presidential crisis, just like in Maduro's article. These are the same arguments and same discussion that took place in the Spanish article. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not: sources unambiguously state that he has "declared himself acting president", not that is is acting president.[24][25][26][27][28] -Darouet (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No Even if Guaido's legitimacy was universally recognized, reliable sources would not describe him as the acting president unless he was actually in charge in Venezuela. TFD (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Absolutely!, @MaoGo:, @ZiaLater:, The infobox did not bring any controversy until just recently. These past four months, there have been no issues until some people that can't jus leave things alone decide to find a problem with every little thing in this article and demand change. Infoboxes are easier to use and give the reader a better understanding when finding information. Many sources recognize him as the "self-declared interim President", not just the President of the National Assembly (many unbiased news stations too). There are many sources that also just describe himself as "Acting President", if some of you would just take time to read more! I agree with @Jamez42:, the word "Disputed" with Nicolas Maduro kept its neutrality and provided more information about the 2019 crisis. We should bring back his label part of the infobox stating "Acting President of Venezuela" with his "Disputed" label as well. There are other articles that show him as interim President, so why not this one? It makes no sense. This article doesn't even match up with Nicolas Maduro's anymore, and it is sad. Ballers19 (Talk) 05:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

"Vamos bien"

Guaidó's catchphrase has had important coverage:[29][30][31][32][33][34][35] (the YouTube link is the official channel of Diosdado's television program). I'm a bit indifferent if it is restored or not, but I wanted to mention here its references. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to it being re-added, I boldly removed it because as far as I could tell, the two Spanish-language sources appeared very marginal and the other source was Guaidó's Twitter. If the sources you're citing above are of higher quality (I'm not really able to judge this well as they're all in Spanish), then by all means readd it. I do think it should be added somewhere else, though, if it is, rather than in the swearing-in section. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Some of those sources are definitely more reliable. Kingsif (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Passports

Guaidó apparently has declared that expired Venezuelan passports are valid for five year more after its expiration date. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed US will recognize expired Venezuelan passports (Yahoo News with AP) --MaoGo (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

"United and seemingly coordinated front"

Not only the quote "united and seemingly coordinated front" has been added with only one of the two references included mention it, but it also gives the impression that, somehow, Latin American and European countries coordinated said recognition with the United States, which violates WP:NPOV. I should also note that the first editor to include such wording argued in the talk page the the European Union didn't recognize Guaidó until February, but afterwards they added to the content that European countries "quickly supported" him, when the EU issued an ultimatum to Maduro to summon elections before. Again, simplifying this and not considering this is a violation of the neutral point of view.--Jamez42 (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Bolstered? Why? I can't find related claims in the articles quoted. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Everything I added is in the reliable source cited. Moreover, you've misunderstood the point about the European countries. UK and a couple others did quickly recognize Guaidó (again, read the source); this was not a widely held position in the EU until later. Also, your point about the EU asking Maduro for elections is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not they supported Guaidó. This article is about Guaidó, not Maduro. Please read and consider arguments and sources more carefully before accusing others of POV. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I didn't deny that the text was referenced, I stated that it was referenced by only one of the two sources, and my main argument is that this point of view if not shared by most of the coverage; namely, recognizing Guaidó in a "united and seemingly coordinated front". --Jamez42 (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jamez42: Please note that "seemingly coordinated" is not the same thing as "coordinated". The point of the quote, as is clear in context, is that many other countries quickly fell in line with the US position, leading to a situation where the Western response to Guaidó's declaration appeared coordinated (i.e., because many nations almost immediately jumped to join the US). Here are some other sources that use this uncontroversial framing:
I am open to alternative ways of wording this (again, uncontroversial) information, such as with a different quotation from one of the above sources, or by paraphrasing one of them, if you feel that the current wording with "seemingly coordinated" is misleading (though I don't agree that it is, as it is a perspective shared by many reliable sources). But it absolutely should not be removed entirely—to do that would actually violate NPOV. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jamez42: I see that you deleted the information again without responding to the discussion here. Please engage on the talk page and not in edit summaries. You have yet to address the points I made above. Thanks. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
@Cmonghost: I'm sorry, I knew there was a discussion missing to respond but I didn't remember which one. I'll address the points accordingly when I have more time in my hands. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
@Cmonghost: Only two sources of the five references listed also use the term "coordination". Quotes should usually use attribution, To use the this wording, this should be a majority point of view, which it seems not to be, and I also worry about cherrypicking; even the Bloomberg source included quote information contrary to this assertment: Luis Almagro, the head of the Organization of American States, said the variety of uncoordinated approaches shows a lack of strategy and cohesion on the part of the international community that only serves to buy Maduro time. Almagro backs a strategy that involves economic pressure and a credible threat of force.</Talk quote inline --Jamez42 (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Bring back "President of Venezuela [Acting]"

This should have never been removed, as it was not a neutrality problem due to the fact that "Disputed with Nicolas Maduro" was included in the infobox. Other pages in different languages follow suit, and do not have problems with neutrality. The info box of Nicolas Maduro contains (Disputed), therefore, Guaido's title should come back regardless of the circumstances. There is no POV problem if neutrality is kept within the infobox, (which it was). I am not the only one who wants this part to be added to the article again. He is recognized by almost 60 countries as interim President, and that title should be listed, as it is the title in which he is recognized as AND as the Venezuelan parliament recognizes him as. Ballers19 (Talk) 00:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ballers19: There is already a discussion for this above, and you already gave this opinion there. First, your argument is essentially WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You need to make the argument for inclusion on this page on its own merits. Second, as is clear from the above discussion, there is no consensus for the change you are requesting. Third, as Darouet noted, reliable sources do not refer to Guaidó as acting president. Rather, they describe him as having been declared president, or as being recognized as president by x country. These are not the same things. Here are the sources they cited: [36][37][38][39][40]. Do you have any showing otherwise? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ballers19 and Cmonghost: despite similar efforts on various wikis [41] you can take a tour of his page on other languages and see that different groups of editors have approached this in different ways. I maintain as before that this change would misrepresent both the facts and sources describing the case. -Darouet (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I support adding the subtitle. In the Spanish Wikipedia we concluded that it was a balanced way to portray the presidential crisis. I agree that there must be a consensus first, but it is not true that the term "acting president" has not been used by reliable sources, specially domestic ones. If needed, we can make a table analysing the terms again like we did discussing about which term to use. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jamez42: In reliable English-language sources, even those with editorial bias in favour of US interests such as NYT and WaPo, Guaidó is overwhelmingly referred to as "opposition leader", not "acting president" or "interim president". Some examples of many: AP AP Reuters Al Jazeera NYT NYT WaPo WaPo. Also note that many of these articles clearly refer to Maduro as president, e.g. with President Nicolás Maduro. On the contrary, Guaidó is never referred to as Acting President Juan Guaidó. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure about "overwhelmingly", that's why I propose creating a table. In any case, I think Spanish sources shouldn't be disregarded. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
If you want to create a table, go ahead; I'm not really convinced it's necessary as I've yet to see any high-quality, reliable sources referring to Guaidó as president without any qualifiers like "self-declared" or "recognized by x countries". As for the Spanish sources, English Wikipedia policy is that English sources should be preferred over non-English sources when English sources of equal or greater quality/relevance are available, per WP:NONENG. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Is this about the infobox? Maybe it is better to scrap it altogether, to avoid this back and forth. Also as said already, it is better not to compare with Wikis in other languages (as most are not up to date). --MaoGo (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
@MaoGo: We don't need to scrap the infobox; it's fine as is. The lead is also subject to back-and-forth disputes, but to remove it for that reason would be ridiculous. All we need to do is make sure that whatever is included in the infobox is based on reliable and verifiable sources. I agree that we should not compare with other language projects. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Guaido's assumed title is "Acting President," not President. The vast majority of countries and the UN do not recognize his legitimacy, he has been unable to assume power, and the U.S. government has for now shelved invasion plans. But most importantly, reliable sources always mention that his claim is disputed. TFD (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Unhelpful comment. The vast majority of countries have not made statements of support of any kind, 60 have recognized Guaidó or denied Maduro's presidency, and about 20 recognize Maduro. The US never had invasion plans (publicly at least). Guaidó claim is disputed in sources as is Maduro's. --MaoGo (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Guaidó claim is disputed in sources as is Maduro's. That's a little misleading. Sources are clear that Maduro currently is president, de facto. All that's disputed is whether or not he should be. This can be evidenced by the fact that, as I outlined above, even US-aligned sources do not say anything like like "Maduro claims to be president", "Maduro declared that he was president", "Maduro is recognized as president by 20 countries", and so on. The sources refer to him as president without any of these qualifiers. In stark contrast, with Guaidó these qualifiers are ubiquitous, and they do not say "(Acting) President Guaidó". It's clear from these differences that Guaidó's claim to currently be president (regardless of whether you or I think he should be) is much more tenuous than Maduro's. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
MaoGo, the over 130 countries that have not recognized Guaido continue to recognize Maduro. They don't have to make a declaration any more than if you were to declare yourself Emperor of Japan. TFD (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Verifikado did a fact check about this, since it is a common fallacy. this map shows that not all of the countries in the world have ties with Venezuela, so even assuming that a lack of declaration is an tacit approval, they would still be way less than 130. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
While as your source say that it would be incorrect to say that every country that does not recognize Guadio therefore supports Maduro, the fact is that they continue to recognize Maduro as president. The U.S, government in comparison does not support the government of Iran, but they recognize it. And your map does not say that not every country has ties with Venezuela, it merely shows that Venezuela does not have embassies physically located in every country. The Venezuelan embassy to the United Kingdom for example is also accredited to the Republic of Ireland. TFD (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC on infobox

There were few matters of policy raised in this RfC, the opinions largely expressing personal preferences. Indeed, User:The Four Deuces at one point remarked that an holistic or encompassing policy to cover cases like this was needed. By straight count, the editors were largely divided with one supporting option one, two supporting option two, one supporting option three, and a plurality of four supporting an "alternative long version". Some other editors expressed alternate opinions like getting rid of the infobox altogether. At this time, with the last comment occurring more than a month ago, there is no consensus and no sign of a consensus emerging. Due to the complete absence of a consensus, the status quo should be preserved until such time as agreement can be reached. Chetsford (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think a WP:RfC is needed on the infobox question; if people prefer:

  • Support version 2, this is a controversial situation where infobox parameters cannot convey nuance, and we should avoid the whole naming and succession issue by simply not having those parameters in the infobox-- cutting it down to a minimum. Everything in the infobox is in the article, but better explained with context. In this case, trying to find a way to simplify information to fit in infobox parameters creates POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    Support version 3, which I added per Kashmiri commentary below (the cuts to version 2 were deeper than necessary). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment As a main contributor at first in the Spanish article, I would say I support the long version since it specifies that the position is disputed while also being the infobox of an authority, where positions should be shown. However, this is a very controversial issue. If the short version helps in the consensus leans towards it, I'd support it. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    Jamez42 I am so allergic to infoboxes that I had not realized the "disputed" tag could be placed differently in this case. If it stays where it can be seen, that resolves my concern, by providing mention of and a link to the dispute.[42] If it moves back down where it's barely visible, then the infobox is more trouble than its worth. Sorry we didn't have a discussion before RFC was launched, as you could have informed me then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
It's alright, this RfC may be helpful :) --Jamez42 (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh, well, it didn't stick,[43] so back to version 2, gummed up RFC already. Discuss before launching RFC :) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I am not allergic to infoboxes, but I think there should be an attempt to have the "disputed" tags removed. And I don't see any chance of the "disputed" tag being removed with the present long infobox; that's all. Huldra (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alternative long version as shown in this edit [44], although the phrase "Disputed with Nicolas Maduro" seems awkward to me (what about just "Disputed"?). Failing that, I prefer the short version (version 2). I share SandyGeorgia's concerns about visibility. signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alternative long version We could denote "Acting President" under the office of President of the National Assembly. This reflects the current political situation where he is simply acting like a president instead of actually being one. - Sleyece (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The short version looks unprofessional. It gives off the appearance that there's nothing to say about Guaidó. If we go for this one, I'd prefer removing the infobox altogether, and just having the picture with a caption. Daß Wölf 02:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    That's habituation (to my eye, Wikipedia bloated infoboxes look unprofessional ... YMMV :) Anyway, the concern is that the reader does not see the "disputed" with the office, so yes, removing the whole darn thing and just having a picture is an option I would like as well. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This is not an isolated issue. There were anti-popes, Jacobite and Carlist pretenders, French legitimists, orleanists and bonapartists, eastern European governments in exile, provisional governments etc. I think there should be a uniform policy for handling these cases. TFD (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    So, why can't the infobox be designed in a way that the "disputed" can be moved up, right next to the office, so that it is visible? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
That would seem to be best. Info-boxes are not designed to explain complex issues, Guaido main notability derives from his claim to be the legitimate acting president of Venezuela. TFD (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support version 1, The current info box is the formal way of presenting the information. Although this topic is disputed, it still looks like the correct format to present this. If you look at other articles in different languages, they do not discuss this and do not have any issues. We should follow their lead, especially the Spanish version. Infoboxes are just there to give a sum of who the officeholder is, it still maintains a neutral position. If you are in favor of removing the Guaido infobox, then the Nicolas Maduro box should be removed as well. In that case, leave it how it is. Just an FYI, I was not the first person to give Juan Guaido an info box, and this issue did not come up until recently. I do not understand why can't it be left alone.The Spanish, French, Russian, Japanese, Korean, and Italian versions all have info boxes. It would be absurd to delete ours for an invalid reason. Ballers19 (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support a mix of the two. I see no reason to excise date and place of birth, names of wife and children, and political affiliation from the infobox. Leave out only controversial fragments, everything else may stay. — kashmīrī TALK 07:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    I have added an interemediate version; the cuts to version 2 were deeper than needed.
    I oppose any "mix of the two" that does not completely nix all offices held by Guaido. Leaving a partial listing of elected offices held creates by POV by implying he does not hold the office of acting president. Leaving out "only controversial" acting presidency, while listing other offices, makes a statement that he is not legitimately holding an office. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alternative long version - The long version contains information that is controversial and doesn't properly convey the disputed nature of his "presidency". The short one just purges all information, with little regard to how controversial it is. The alternative version sounds like a decent enough compromise. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On the rfc infobox closure

@Chetsford: thanks for closing the rfc on the infobox [45]. One thing bothers me though, when you say "the status quo should be preserved until such time as agreement can be reached." do you mean as it was on 5 May [46] when the RFC was called, the long one that was there before the rfc started [47] or the current one? --MaoGo (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Vuelve a Casa / Vamos a Trabajar

Adding this, since it hasn't been discussed so far. I don't know how much coverage has it had internationally. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

What exactly is it, a sign-up program for people who want to be public servants? I haven't seen any coverage of it in English yet. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
More or less a sign-up for people that are interested in the reconstruction of the country once a hypothetical transition begins, not necessarily as a public servants, similar to the volunteer sign-up that was subject to the phishing scheme. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Irregularities

I learned about a declaration specifying that the scrutiny over the representatives started as soon as the Colombian intelligence informed Guaidó. If anybody finds it before me, please let us know. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Jamez42 (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Weight of the US in the lead

@ZiaLater: I think it's clear from the sources I provided in the section above (and many others) that the US played a leading and central role in international recognition of Guaidó (and in his ongoing campaign to unseat Maduro). Virtually all sources mention the US when discussing Guaidó's initial recognizers and main backers throughout 2019, even when others are excluded; when others are included, they are frequently described as following the US's lead. Including the US is therefore not a weight problem; repeatedly removing it is: the US is not being given WP:DUE weight. We need to follow the reliable sources, and, in the lead, accurately summarize the article, which also makes clear the US's outsized role. The wording that you deleted also included other countries; I don't think it's important which of them are included, but I don't see how it's disputable that the US should be. Can you please explain in more detail why you disagree, if you do? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: Do we mention the Cubans and Russians playing a leading role to prop up Maduro as well? Virtually all sources report this, but then we devolve into the polarization wording once more, ruining the lede. Keeping the lede simple prevents this. Placing this in the body is not a problem.----ZiaLater (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@ZiaLater: As you'll see if you read the sources above, it's actually not the case that virtually all articles about Guaidó's declaration of acting presidency mention "the Cubans and Russians playing a leading role to prop up Maduro." This is likely because they are about Guaidó, not Maduro. This article is also about Guaidó, not Maduro. Feel free to add that information to Maduro's article if you like, if it's not already there, or to the crisis article, but I don't see what it has to do with this one. Also, as I just said, the lead is supposed to summarize the article; the information you're mentioning is not in this article so there's no reason to put it into the lead. Your argument is based on a false equivalency. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
If you want to completely remove the statement about his receiving recognition, i.e., completely delete the text that says "and received support from various governments" or similar, I would support that. But it inaccurately downplays the role of the US to simply state "various governments". — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 04:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I think Zia's argument can be rephrased as "Cubans and Russians playing a leading role in opposing Guaidó", since the opposition has been stark, particularly from the later. For instance, Russia's Putin calls supporters of Venezuela's Guaido crazy. --Jamez42 (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
If the preponderance of reliable sources are presenting that framing, then sure, include it. I don't personally recall seeing a lot of articles saying things like "Russia and/or Cuba led the opposition to Guaidó" or "other nations fell in line with Russia and Cuba", etc., so I don't know if it's justifiable without OR to specifically call one of them or both leaders. In the article you linked Putin appears to say he's neutral to Guaidó and disapproves of his supporters; extrapolating a leading role from that article seems like OR.
I still don't see what all this has to do with my point above. I wasn't able to find any sources that discuss Guaidó's swearing in that did not include the US's role. Even if there are some exceptions it's clear that this is a very widely used framing and not controversial. I'm fine with including other nations, on either side, if their inclusion can be similarly motivated. But the case of the US is unambiguous, and as far as I can tell, the argument against it is not based on policy or on reliable sources.
Last point: when writing about a polarized conflict, it is not unencyclopedic to describe that polarization. Imagine if the lead of the article on Donald Trump said that he had won the 2016 election by defeating "various candidates". That wording implies roughly equal importance for all the other candidates. Yet Trump had one main opponent and the others were marginal. The empirical facts are obscured by the vague wording. So too with this article. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Cmonghost: @Jamez42: I just do not recommend feeding into the polarization (which the media feeds from). For instance, if we open up the can of worms to discuss the alleged collaborations between the US/EU/Lima Group and the opposition, then we allow the discussions regarding allegations surrounding Maduro purchasing arms from the Chinese and Russians in the middle of the crisis and his alleged use of foreign military intervention to maintain power. This is a main argument of the opposition; that they do not face a democratic leader but a military dictatorship, which according to some is why they resorted to making the drastic move with Guaidó. Now, wording like this in the body does not bother me, but it can seem tremendously unbalanced and difficlut to read in the lede. So, keep it simple, some governments recognize Guaidó. It's true, it's easy to read and if someone wants to know the details, we can throw in a link to the "responses" article. Does this make sense?----ZiaLater (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@ZiaLater: That would make sense if I were proposing to include information about alleged collaborations between the US/EU/Lima Group and the opposition in the lead, but I'm not. The text that I'm proposing be restored is something along the lines of what was deleted here. As you can see, it didn't say anything inflammatory or controversial about collusion between governments or a US conspiracy, or anything else that's being implied. All it said was that after Guaidó announced that he was Acting President, he was quickly supported by the US, Canada, and some Latin American and European nations. This is in line with how the information is typically presented by reliable sources: the US is virtually always mentioned; often, Canada is; then, a phrase like "and many Latin American countries" or "and some Latin American and European nations" or "along with the Lima Group and some European countries" or something like that is given. This is not controversial, it reflects reliable sources in giving roughly the same weight to the various nations involved as they do, and it reflects our own article, as the lead is supposed to. You've said repeatedly that it is polarizing, but I don't see how it could be, unless we're operating on different definitions of the word "polarizing". It is an empirical statement that is well-supported by sources and does not make any accusations of untoward behaviour on the part of Guaidó, the US, or any of the other countries involved. (I note that this wording is already a compromise; in my view, an ideal version would specify that the US was the first to recognize him and was followed by the others, as most reliable sources do, but I am willing to meet in the middle with this wording.)
The text that is now in the article, on the other hand, just says that Guaidó received support from "various governments". This is a vague statement that does not reflect reliable sources (as I said, virtually all of them at least mention the United States, and we are not giving it the weight that they do), and tells the reader nothing that they would not have already learned by reading the rest of the lead, which already makes clear that "various governments" support Guaidó (they recognized his diplomats).
I am making a serious, good faith attempt to understand your rationale here, but I'm not coming up with anything that makes sense to me. What part of my argument above do you disagree with? Could you please specify what exactly the problem is, without changing the subject to Maduro or bringing up some inflammatory change that I haven't proposed we make? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@ZiaLater: Just to clarify, I agree with leaving out said polarization. In a way, the ambiguity could help with the neutrality. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jamez42: What polarization? Please explain clearly what you mean. That word has been thrown around repeatedly with no effort to clarify what is meant, which is a problem because it is the only reason that has been offered for leaving out well-sourced and WP:DUE content. What is the POV problem with the phrase "Guaidó [...] quickly received the support of the United States, Canada, and some Latin American and European nations"? Please refrain from WP:IDONTLIKEIT-based arguments such as those that have been offered so far, and cite the Wikipedia policy or reliable source that supports your opinion, if any. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jamez42: @Cmonghost: It does not makes sense that we include specific governments without mentioning others, especially when some governments recognized Maduro just as quickly as others recognized Guaidó. So, the neutral proposal is adding that Guaidó is recognized by "some/various governments". Naming certain regions is not accurate because there are governments on every habitable continent recognize Guaido as acting president (mentioned in this edit). Naming the United States beside other groups is giving the United States as much weight as entire reigions, which is not balanced. Again, mentioning specific countries opens up the potential for a pissing contest regarding the amounts of support, the polarizing "familiar geopolitical sides" wording and other issues that could tarnish the lede. The way that many media sources word Venezuela-related articles is Maduro (ideology 1) vs. Guaidó (ideology 2) or United States vs. Russia (you get the picture). This is an interesting read, but it is more editorial than academic. Keep it simple.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
@ZiaLater: Responses to your individual points below.
It does not makes sense that we include specific governments without mentioning others, especially when some governments recognized Maduro just as quickly as others recognized Guaidó. It makes perfect sense when you consider that our job is to reflect the information found in reliable sources and not to provide false balance.
Naming certain regions is not accurate because there are governments on every habitable continent recognize Guaido as acting president. The part of the lead in question is not discussing his current recognition at this moment but the circumstances of his swearing-in, at which time the number of nations that had recognized him was smaller.
So, the neutral proposal is adding that Guaidó is recognized by "some/various governments". [...] The way that many media sources word Venezuela-related articles is Maduro (ideology 1) vs. Guaidó (ideology 2) or United States vs. Russia (you get the picture). This is an interesting read, but it is more editorial than academic. No, it is not neutral, nor is it academic, to give all nations and regions the same weight by lumping them all into one category when they do not receive equal weight in reliable sources. Can you explain why your opinion of how much weight various nations and regions should receive should be given more consideration than the weight that reliable sources give them? I understand that you do not like the way that reliable sources are describing these issues. Unless you have reliable sources that are doing a better job, my view is that that doesn't matter.
Again, mentioning specific countries opens up the potential for a pissing contest regarding the amounts of support, the polarizing "familiar geopolitical sides" wording and other issues that could tarnish the lede. Please see our article on the slippery slope fallacy.
 I would like to refer again to my analogy above about the US election in 2016. In the lead of the Donald Trump article, we see the following text: He was elected president in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, although he lost the popular vote. Maybe I'm not a fan of the polarizing two-party dichotomy, and I wish our article described this as a "victory over Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Gloria La Riva...", or simply as "... over various candidates". That's too bad for me, because that is not how reliable sources, academic or otherwise, describe it—and for good reason, because those candidates, like it or not, were not nearly as prominent or important as the Democratic nominee. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Since the discussion here went stale and no one responded to my final comment, I waited for just under a month and then copied longstanding text from the body of the article to the lead. Since you stopped replying above, I'm a little confused that you reverted this change with edit summary "This has already been discussed in the talk page, in this context there's no consensus to specify such governments or to give more weight to one or another based on the time of the recognition". I would first suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus", and then ask if you would be willing to explain your reversion in more detail. The lead is meant to summarize the article (hence why I used the same wording) and reflect reliable sources (I've shown above that this frame is used by many reliable sources); could you explain which of those criteria was not met by my edit? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Support this revert, per Zia your phrasing feeds polarization. Even if we desired to include such a phrasing it would be preferable to say "received support from the United States, followed shortly thereafter by Canada and other Latin American and European countries; Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Cuba and Turkey supported Maduro", so we avoid further US refs POV on this article (which seemed to be one of the sources of the "bias references" problem).--MaoGo (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The reality is that the other countries followed the U.S. lead and that few if any of them would have supported Guaido had the U.S. not done so first, especially if the U.S. had decided to back Maduro instead of Guaido. TFD (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The call for Guaidó to swear oath as acting president started before the 23 of January, some countries of the region had already announced support to that move before it happened[48].--MaoGo (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@MaoGo:, the January 13 Guardian article says Brazil and Columbia were reported to have announced recognition of Guaido. However, an article in Reuters says Brazil recognized Guaido on Jan. 23[49] and an artilce in Bloomberg says, "Trump formally recognized Guaido minutes after the 35-year-old president of the Venezuela National Assembly declared himself the head of state. Countries including Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Panama quickly followed the U.S. lead."[50] As Alonso Gurmendi who is a constitutional law professor explained, no country had actually recognized Guaido as Acting President beforehand and their statements were wrongly reported.[51] TFD (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Recognition or not (I do not see still why not), the statements were messages of support. I do not know who Alonso Gurmendi is, it is an opinion article anyway, you can go straight to the source and see that Colombia was giving support to the National Assembly and making reference to article 233 [52], the constitution article that calls for the NA president to become acting president if the president is considered unavailable. Gurmendi seems to call for a contradiction (about the supreme court), but I do not get how the problem he calls for invalidates that it is a message in support for Guaidó to take action. For Brazil look here Brazil says it recognizes Venezuelan opposition leader as president-Reuters. Also the OAS chief supported Guaidó before the oath [53]. --MaoGo (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@MaoGo:, Alonso Gurmendi is a "Full-time professor of international law at Universidad del Pacífico Academic Department of Law. He holds a Master of Laws (LLM) in International Legal Studies with a certification in Human Rights from Georgetown University and is a Lawyer from Universidad de Lima." He has 16 srticles listed at Google scholar.[54] That makes him an expert, hence his article is reliable. The fact you have never heard of him is moot.
We have two articles from Reuters: "Brazil says it recognizes Venezuelan opposition leader as president" (Jan. 12 2019) and "Brazil recognizes Guaido as Venezuela's interim president" (Jan 23 2019). They cannot both be right. Fortunately you do not need to take my word or the word of experts, but can look at the original declarations to see they were misreported. Your source from Jan. 13 says, "Colombia ratifies its full recognition of the National Assembly, headed by its president Juan Guaidó, as a democratically elected constitutional body in Venezuela, and supports the exercise of all its powers." There is a difference between recognizing his as president of the National Assembly and Acting President of Venezuela.
TFD (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
He has very modest Google Scholar statistics. He seems to be writing since 2010, no more cited than 3 times, and his indexes are not that high. Both articles can be right, one is recognizing Guaidó before, and the other after. Reuters is very reliable, it can be right, one statement to recognize Guaidó before and one after. I looked for Spanish sources and what they use is apoyar (tr:support) see Brasil y Colombia apoyan gobierno de transición en Venezuela written by AFP. The source from Jan 13 says that Colombia recognizes Guaidó as president of National Assembly and approves/supports any of his actions included those that could derive from article 233 (which Guaidó "may" use to claim the presidency). --MaoGo (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I am sure he is more qualified to read and understand an official declaration that you or I are. I agree that sources at the time said recognize, however that was an incorrect interpretation and according to reliable sources, Brazil recognized Guaido after the U.S. What does your Spanish source say about January 23? TFD (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I did not see that Gurmendi opinion article talked about Brazil too. I think the discrepancy is better dealt in the RSN. Sure, I get what you are saying, the statements may not be a recognition per se, but what I'm trying to argue here is that at least Brazil, Colombia and OAS chief stated support for Guaidó and his possible upcoming actions (oath). This sets a precedent to the recognitions that took place later on January, 23.--MaoGo (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@MaoGo: would you be willing to point me to the policy or guideline you're using to justify your view that we not represent the dominant perspective of reliable sources because some editors think those sources are "polarizing"? An explanation of what is meant by "polarization" in this context, and why it is a problem, would also be useful, given that it remains nebulously defined. Do you feel that Wikipedia should avoid describing or representing polarizing events or individuals as such? I would really appreciate some clarity on this; previous responses just treat "polarization" as self-evidently bad without providing any rationale. Thanks. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The example of polarizability is this talk page. First we had 50 countries but people wanted to include 50/ 200 countries without any source using that and with many countries not having a clear statement. Then we had Talk:Juan Guaidó#Familiar geopolitical sides, that lead to a whole rewriting of the main paragraph of the lead just because it did not include Latin America. Zia came with a version that did not even name any other country, to which I raised the concern that something must be said, which lead to "various countries". And then you seem be trying to add all of that again, but specifically separating the US as the sole key figure and positioning all on the 23 January. Countries have given the support to Guaidó, before, during and after the oath. If this is so problematic every time, why just not leave it as it is and let the reader look for the mayor details on the text and on the separate article about responses?--MaoGo (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@MaoGo: I'm still not seeing any explanation for what is inherently polarizing about including the leading role of the US in the lead, or why it would be a problem for it to be polarizing. You have brought up that there is polarization on the talk page (though I note this doesn't seem to be what was meant when previous editors used the term), but keep in mind that per our policy of WP:NPOV, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. I acknowledge that several editors are strongly opposed to mentioning the United States in the lead, but unfortunately this seems not to be based on actual Wikipedia policies or guidelines, nor on reliable sources, but on WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
you seem to be trying to add all of that again, but specifically separating the US as the sole key figure and positioning all on the 23 January. The text in question comes directly after Guaidó declared he was acting president on 23 January 2019. of course it's about 23 January. What else would it be about? What I am trying to do is develop a lead that accurately reflects what is said about Guaidó's subsequent support/recognition in reliable sources, as well as in the article itself. Presently, the lead says that after he declared himself president, Guaidó subsequently received support from "various governments" without specifying which governments those were, or giving examples of prominent ones. This kind of frame is never used in reliable sources, which typically highlight the leading role of the US and then often also mention Brazil, Canada, and others. Here again below for your reference are some of the many reliable sources that describe the US as leading the international recognition of Guaidó:
— cmonghost 👻 (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Polarization is not the only problem here. You keep throwing sources when we all know what happened. How much weight should we give to that information in the LEAD? take the WaPo article you just cited, as introducing paragraph he decides to write: 35-year-old Maduro rival Guaidó was largely unknown outside Venezuela until the beginning of this year, but he is now backed by the United States, Israel, Canada and a number of South American countries, including Brazil, Argentina and Peru, as other governments are considering whether to throw their support behind the Venezuelan opposition.
It chooses to give equal level to US, Israel, Canada and South America before getting to the line you cited. Let's see other articles from non US sources:
  • Al Jazeera: Guaido stunned Venezuelans on Wednesday by declaring himself interim president before cheering supporters in Venezuela's capital, Caracas, buoyed by massive anti-government protests. And support from US President Donald Trump, Canada and numerous Latin American countries, along with the Organization of American States, immediately rolled in. [55]
  • CBC: Juan Guaido has declared himself president of Venezuela — a move quickly endorsed by several Latin American countries, as well as Canada and the United States. Just two months ago, many people around the world, and even inside Venezuela, may not have known Guaido's name.[56]
  • The Guardian: "In a high-stakes political gamble, Guaidó on Wednesday declared himself Venezuela’s legitimate interim president and was quickly recognised as such by powers including the United States, Brazil, Canada and Colombia."[57]
  • France24: The 35-year-old opposition lawmaker declared himself Venezuela’s acting president last week on the grounds that Nicolas Maduro fraudulently won a second term in office last year. France, the United States, and a host of Latin American countries have recognised him as the country’s legitimate leader, however, Maduro still has the key support of the country’s military.[58]
  • TASS: Several countries recognized him as interim president, including Argentina, Brazil, Guatemala, Canada, Columbia Costa Rica, Paraguay, Peru, the United States, Chile and Ecuador.[59]
and let us not forget the 50 countries lines that it is also used:
  • El País:The 35-year-old leader of the National Assembly, who has been recognized as the interim president of Venezuela by more than 50 world governments[60]
What I try to convey here is that, first, US sources are more interested in the detail that Trump went first, second, that as many sources, when summarizing or introducing the article, do not state that US went first, this can be left for the body of the article. This discussion seem to be based on that matter: Should we precise US going first on the lead, or leave it to the article? The best, having seen the problems it conveys to the users here is to just avoid it altogether. The details can be covered in the body of the article or in responses.--MaoGo (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I may have said it before and it may have been mentioned, but if it helps I'll emphasize the positions of the region and of the international community regarding the elections of the Constituent Assembly, as well as both before the presidential elections, where there were serious concerns regarding its conditions and circumstances, and after. The Organization of American States declared Maduro illegitimate just minutes after his inauguration started, and it would be troublesome to mention this initiative was "led by the US", for example. Saying that the US led the recognition or assuming that the recognition wouldn't have happened on the contrary would claim that said nations are not autonomous or that their foreign policy is dependent on the United States; having establishes positions in groups such as the Lima Group, the OAS or the European Union, this would be a gross oversimplification. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@MaoGo: Thank you for bringing sources to the discussion. I sincerely appreciate it, and I concede that not all sources describe the US as "leading", though many do. I think the main problem with the lead as it currently stands is that it uses "various governments" while not mentioning who those governments are, which does not reflect the sources we've both cited. The commonality between the sources you've cited and those that I have is that they all give specific examples of prominent nations that have supported Guaidó. You suggested above that we say received support from the United States, Canada and other Latin American and European countries; Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Cuba and Turkey supported Maduro, while leaving out the text followed shortly thereafter by, and I'm willing to go with that compromise if you are. Another option would be to simply remove the clause containing the weasel words entirely, and leave the sentence as Guaidó declared he was acting president on 23 January 2019, subsequently receiving support from various governments. Are either of these compromises acceptable to you? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Cmonghost: No problem, thank you for understanding and keeping the conversation reasonable. If I had to choose between those two options I will go with received support from the United States, Canada and other Latin American and European countries; Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Cuba and Turkey supported Maduro but be careful a source that says the same has to be added, if not we will continue to argue over and over with people trying to add more countries into the mix.--MaoGo (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@MaoGo: In the body of the article (which contains near-identical text), the following sources are given: [61][62][63]. The second source, from PBS, seems to be where the list is from: the U.S., Canada and some Latin American and European countries announced that they supported Guaido’s claim that the constitution makes him interim president. But Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Cuba and Turkey have voiced their backing for Maduro’s government. I think that source is probably sufficient for the lead. What do you think? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Cmonghost:Yeah the PBS source works for me. We can try that for now. I hope other users agree.--MaoGo (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Cmonghost:, I'll be answering to the first message since it is the one you pinged me directly from. I simply stopped replying because ZiaLater continued the discussion, and my last message was addressed to them. While Don't revert due solely to 'no consensus', I've already explained by rationale in the talk page, and if you wanted a response from me you could have pinged me to ask instead of restoring the contested change, something that I suggest in the future. Given the lengths that this discussion has already gone to, I think WP:DROPTHESTICK applies. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jamez42: I disagree that WP:DROPTHESTICK applies here, given that the discussion is now active and we are finally getting somewhere now that MaoGo has provided some additional sources. As for if you wanted a response from me you could have pinged me to ask instead of restoring the contested change—I did not want or need a response from you until you reverted my edit without explaining why (other than "no consensus" in your edit summary), at which time I asked for a response. I have already explained the rationale for my edit above and don't feel I need to justify it further. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I posted a question at RSN. MaoGo still has not explained why all the media since Jan 23 have been wrong or why anyone should have recognized Guaido as Acting President before he even he declared he was Acting President. TFD (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to do other things. Please be patient, I will respond today. For those interested in the RSN go here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Juan Guaido.--MaoGo (talk) 07:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC on "himself"

Leaving the link of the RfC on "himself" here. --Jamez42 (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Lede: “...and intimidated him”

My edit removing the odd addition “and intimidated him” at the end of a sequence of actions taken by the government against Guaidó was reverted, stating “these were actual death threats”. This seems to tacitly understand my revision message that it was “not informative”, by feeling the need to clarify the action taken against Guaidó, rather than its effect on him (which the article later contradicts by stating that he was “not afraid”).

Still, the reason the original didn’t read “and made death threats against him” is presumably because that’s not supportable, since the rundown later in the article makes clear that the type of “threats” at issue were Maduro boasting at Gauidó’s insignificance by joking that he would have an assistant take care of him. It’s not unreasonable to assume that even a joke like that by the leader of one’s government, in control of its entire security apparatus, would create a feeling of intimidation — but without all that context, it’s awkwardly-worded in addition to being misleading; but adding that context would muddle it even more.

--23.115.162.60 (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Changing it to "menaced him with violence." Got any better suggestions? --MaoGo (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Though I don't feel it's particularly necessary, "intimated threats of violence" would be better, it succintly gets across at least some of the lengthy context IP23 described. Kingsif (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok, that works for me too.--MaoGo (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Definitely an improvement. --23.115.162.60 (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Infobox — no consensus

In this RfC on the Infobox, SandyGeorgia offered two infobox versions to editors:

1. A medium-length infobox calling Guaidó "President of Venezuela, Acting" (later noting this is "disputed") [64],

2. A very short infobox omitting this and all other descriptions: [65].

Previous consensus on the page held that Guaidó should not be called "Acting President of Venezuela" in the infobox, since this designation was and remains highly contentious. But the RfC created a strange situation where editors were asked either to accept this description, or no infobox at all. When Kashmiri pointed this out this problem in the RfC, a third alternative version was made, and received the only further RfC vote (by PraiseVivec) before the RfC was closed by Chetsford.

The infobox can be long or it can be short, but there is no agreement that Guaidó should be listed as "President of Venezuela, Acting" in the first line of his Wikipedia biography infobox, even if that infobox does state four lines later that this designation is disputed. -Darouet (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

As such a contentious subject, I feel this should have its own RfC and not be discussed in debates about the infobox in general. Kingsif (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Please check Talk:Juan Guaidó/Archive 4, there was no consensus whatsoever and the closure did not explain what was the version of the infobox to be kept.--MaoGo (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
As a comment on the recent change, I would uphold that we should not use "self-declared" in the infobox, i.e. without context, for BLP reasons. A discussion on whether to include "disputed" and where it should go should have an RfC of its own, imo. Kingsif (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Los Rastrojos

???

Driving to Colombia? New photos show Juan Guaido in car with ‘drug cartel gangster’

rt.com/news/469220-guaido-drug-cartel-photos/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.123.183 (talk) 10:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Be free to add the information with the proper references. Russia Today is not recommended per WP:RSP.--MaoGo (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Infobox subtitles and normalization

A discussion involving this article has been started in the 2020 Venezuelan National Assembly Delegated Committee election article talk page. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Updates starting again

BBC has deemed it important enough to run this, though I can't see it being more than a brief mention since it's mostly background. Kingsif (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

New overview article... "1 year on"

From the BBC (in English, 23 January 2020) Kingsif (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Intimidation and threats

@BeŻet:, please notice the description of Juan Guaidó 2019.png in Wikimedia Commons, which was removed from the article, as well as, if you wish, watch the video that is the source of the image (Juan Guaidó denunció acoso a su familia). The image takes places right after Guaidó's presentation in the Central University and after he denounced the presence of FAES forces outside his family home. Saying that it is emotional manipulation and not relevant to the section. If you prefer, the caption of the image can be changed to improve neutrality with the description in Commons, "Juan Guaidó with his wife and his daughter after announcing Plan País" or "Juan Guaidó with his wife and his daughter after he denounced the presence of FAES forces outside his family home".

Likewise, the presence of the FAES officials was confirmed by journalists, and was not only Guaidó's claim. The Intimidation and Threats section also includes Maduro's joke about "sending his assistant to kill Guaidó" and Cabello's remark that Guaidó had not experienced "the whistle of a bullet". Together, this amounts to around half of the content of the article, and the title should not include "Claims", specially considering WP:ALLEGED. I have also included Iris Varela's declarations to further develop the section. In any case, the issue would be if these situations should be considered intimidation and threats. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

This photo has no purpose in the article. It brings nothing of value, illustrates nothing discussed. The fact that was taken after some announcement is completely irrelevant. Photos and pictures should aid the article, not be pointless decoration. BeŻet (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Image

@BeŻet: It isn't "pointless" or a "decoration", the picture illustrates the moment he arrived at his family home after security forces surrounded it, something that it should be stressed, is explicitly mentioned in the section. Unlike what the edit summary suggests, it isn't just a "family picture", he's being interviewed by journalists about the event. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Again, this is pointless. What does this photo help understand? BeŻet (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
@BeŻet: MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, it is a picture related to the section. You mentioned in the edit summary that it was "emotional manipulation" rather than pointless, but given that it is not an unrelated picture, it should be included. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Please read that article (MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE) and once again, explain to me how does this image help understand anything? I have mentioned "emotional manipulation" because, as it stands, it can be seen as a propaganda attempt. Literally the first two sentences of the MOS state: Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. The photo is neither significant, nor an illustrative aid to understanding, and it's only extremely vaguely relevant. Therefore, clearly, the image is not appropriate there. BeŻet (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@BeŻet: The photo is significant, relevant and an illustrative aid. As I have already said before, tt shows who Guaidó's wife and daughter are, who are directly referenced in the section, and the image takes place during one of the reported incidents of intimidation. If there are doubts about the relevance, the change in the caption should help solving that. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. It isn't remotely important to show who Guiado's wide and daughter are. This section is not about his family, and as I've explained several times now, it is not WP:NPOV as it can easily be seen as manipulation. BeŻet (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@BeŻet: And I disagree that "It isn't remotely important who Guiado's wide [sic] and daughter are". Seeing it as manipulation is just an interpretation, and so far you have been the only editor that has expressed this view, after the image had been included. Because of this, I suggest you revert this change. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
There is no consensus to include the image. There is no need for me to do a revert. BeŻet (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
@BeŻet: There is no consensus to exclude the image, it is not the other way around. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
You have a remarkable talent to bend regulations to fit your needs. Of course it doesn't work that way. BeŻet (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@BeŻet: Don't personalize the discussion. I'm not saying the same about you. --Jamez42 (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jamez42 and BeŻet: I agree that an image of his family is not relevant in the intimidation/threats section, though it could be relevant in the section about his personal life (currently titled "Early life and education", but mentions his wife and daughter). — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion. BeŻet (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
@BeŻet and Cmonghost: I have added the image in the "Early life and education" section and changed the caption according to the Commons description. Please let me know if you disagree with this change. --Jamez42 (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Section title

I would like to adress the title name, since it has not been discussed even though it was mentioned at the beginning. The section currently includes more events than declarations; furthermore, the section now includes agressions as well. To reflect the content and per WP:ALLEGED, "Claims" should be removed from the "Intimidation and threats". --Jamez42 (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

There are two aspects here. One, the events mentioned are not objectively threats or attempts at intimidation (this is why I believe some sentences need to be rewritten). Second, most of the events are reported, and thus interpreted by Guaido himself. Therefore, I don't believe it is neutral to be stating that these events are threats or attempts at intimidation, and "claims" is a better descriptor. BeŻet (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

About phonetics 4

@Nardog: We have discussed this before: Talk:Juan_Guaidó/Archive_1#Minor debate about pronunciation of "Juan",Talk:Juan_Guaidó/Archive_1#Minor discussion about phonetics 2 ,Talk:Juan_Guaidó/Archive_2#Minor discussion about phonetics 3. For the moment the consensus is to use the local pronunciation as no guideline has been provided and others users that have criticized it before did not have a problem with that after discussion. H:IPA-ES notes that [h] can be used. Can you explain me what in MOS:PRON forbids this?--ReyHahn (talk) 10:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I found this in MOS:PRON:
For example, the Help:IPA/Spanish key generally uses Castilian Spanish as its standard, for Venezuela [beneˈθwela], but the local pronunciation of [beneˈswela] may be considered more relevant. If a local pronunciation is transcribed, it should be marked as such
--ReyHahn (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't see any substantial consensus to use ⟨h⟩ being formed there. Just a couple of editors milling about, with IvanScrooge98 appropriately telling them to not use ⟨h⟩ inside {{IPA-es}} or to use {{IPA-all}} instead for that purpose, which I did in the edit you have now undone.
MOS:PRON#Other languages: if the language you're transcribing has such an IPA key, use the conventions of that key. If you wish to change those conventions, bring it up for discussion on the key's talk page. Help:IPA/Spanish explicitly sanctions use of ⟨ʝ⟩ for ll and ⟨s⟩ for c, z in articles with strong ties to varieties of Spanish that have them. It does not note that [h] can be used—as it does not list ⟨h⟩ in the consonants table—only that /x/ is pronounced as [h], which is a (sourced) statement of fact, not a piece of guidance for editors. Nardog (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I do not see how MOS:PRON#Other languages is arguing against the use of local pronunciation, it is not that clear that [h] is not allowed. That said, I apologize, I did not see that you kept Venezuelan pronunciation in the note. I find that as a note it is less distracting and settles both versions, thanks for insisting.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
It's not arguing against the use of local pronunciation, it's arguing against the use of an IPA-xx template that links to a key under Help:IPA/... in a way that does not adhere to the said key. Nardog (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Understood now.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Juan_Guaidó/Archive_4&oldid=996380735"