Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:44, 6 May 2019

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Juan Guaidó article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 45 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Venezuela High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Venezuela, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Venezuela on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VenezuelaWikipedia:WikiProject VenezuelaTemplate:WikiProject VenezuelaVenezuela High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. South America: Venezuela Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Venezuela (assessed as High-importance). This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Juan Guaidó article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 45 days

Undue weight for Meganálisis polls

A lot of the article cites many polls by Meganálisis. A quick look at their Twitter account makes it very clear that they are highly partisan and do not hide their support for the subject of this article, which is rather unusual for a polling firm. This is perhaps not the biggest issue with an article that is used by many as a platform for US-backed regime change propaganda, but still worth doing something about. --90.156.104.160 (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Other pollsters have been quoted and no references have been provided reporting this bias. However, a footnote could be included. --Jamez42 (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Other surveys, including one in Colombia (and I recently came across one in Uruguay even) are showing the same thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

What is the reason to publish here surveys from other countries (like Colombia)? Other countries should be removed from this table, or have another table. There are a lot of countries, but they shouldn't decide for Venezuela.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.135.22.7 (talk) 13:41, April 30, 2019 (UTC)

Colombia has been a major player in the Venezuela events and politics surrounding the crisis, and because Colombia has been so impacted by the crisis, in terms of stability, drug wars, migration, humanitarian aid, so much more. How Colombians view the players in the presidential crisis is quite relevant. That Venezuelan people will "decide" ignores the geopolitical influences bring brought to bear, and in that sense, Colombia is significant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Main image

Allright, the main image keeps changing: let's decide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Option A
• Option B
• Option C (ORIGINAL)
• Option C (ALTERNATE) Option C (ALTERNATE)
• Option D

Discussion

• Option B. My second choice would be Option C (ORIGINAL). I think C looks a bit sketchy, and washed out. I don't like that he is "in the shadows". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• I updated the gallery per comments below, and I still prefer Option B.

  Option C (ORIGINAL) is dark, dreary, in the shadows, makes him look just plain creepy. Also, portraits are all about the eyes, and the washed out eyes in Option C are what make him appear somewhat sketchy.

  Option C (ALTERNATE) looks waxy and artificial.

  Option B shows more character. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Option B He looks more like a legislator. Probably C, A and D next in that order. TFD (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• @The Four Deuces: new option added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Didn't notice this was here before I changed it, but I had to fix the wax figure of C - the original version of that photo is up now, looking more lifelike, and is what I'd vote for. Sorry, continue. Kingsif (talk) 08:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• So, Option C (original) for you then? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• I wouldn't put in a vote, but that would be it. B is close, but the slightly tilted head and closed expression almost make him look like he's hiding being drunk from his parents, he looks less of a professional guy in it for me. Kingsif (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Option B, my second option would be the original version of C. --Jamez42 (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm striking my comment for the same reasons as Oscar, although I too would like to bring attention to the original C. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I'm biased with this, that why I'm not voting, but please take a moment to consider the original C (Here), since it was a bit of a nightmare to upload the photo. Some user already tried to correct some of the shadows. --Oscar_. (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• There are (including the separate file) 5 versions of that image, but I think the second version of the original is best, after that @Wilfredor: is just washing out features and making him look unreal (no offence intended, I love his work as ThePhotographer, but there's no quality improvements after the first clean). If it were restored to this version (18:56, 23 March 2019) would people prefer it? Kingsif (talk) 09:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• I updated the gallery to the untouched version (had not realized). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• I do not necessarily care, from best to worst for me: B,D,C's,A. --MaoGo (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Are there any photos of him that make his eyes look a bit more normal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:14C5:8206:219:E3FF:FED3:9BF8 (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Option C – While C image is pretty... creative, B image looks like it was taken on a phone camera ten years ago.----ZiaLater (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: @SandyGeorgia: I have also changed the lighting in image C. The left side of his face had a lot of exposure and the whole image had a lot of shadows. Better now?----ZiaLater (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• Hi, ZiaLater; he still looks either dead, or like he's made of wax, to me in that image. I also don't like that his face is shaded, no matter how we fix the lighting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I say option B. Seems the best combination of neutral depiction and quality of lighting. Paxperscientiam (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Option D should be rejected. There is an American flag in the background, that should be an automatic DQ. Carrite (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Dismissal

Hi

I think we should add a footnote about his dismissal by Maduro. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

He wasn't dismissed, but rather inhabilitated by the Auditor general named by the Constituent Assembly. Guaidó responded saying that the auditor, Elvis Amoroso, is as illegitimate as the Constituent Assembly. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Also according to some experts, the Auditor is an administrative body, not a judiciary one. The auditor does not have the power to rule unfit any deputy . Let us keep this in mind when writing that piece: El Nacional.--MaoGo (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

On it, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-guaido/venezuela-bars-guaido-from-holding-public-office-for-15-years-idUSKCN1R9298 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Fire squad

Can this go anywhere? Miami Herald Members of the ANC called for "paredon" (firing squad) for Guaido during the immunity talks.--MaoGo (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I saw that on Instagram-- quite horrific. Do they forget that Chavez, responsible for hundreds of deaths, was pardoned? I guess because it is quite sensationalist, we should get consensus to add it, and if people agree, it can be added under Further threats? Miami Herald is paywalled for me ... will watch for it on other sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Here is a BBC piece on the ANC reactions: That treats it more lightly.--MaoGo (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

And it's all over the news today, so I will go ahead and add something (I was reluctant earlier as few sources had picked it up). Translation at CC SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know the fire squads were also common during the Cuban Revolution, just like the "popular" tribunals. I'd suggest to make the connection like it was done with the latter. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

As TFD mentions below, we only have that connection made by Rubio, so I was reluctant to add it unless there is another source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The Miami Herald source does not say that any members of the ANC called for firing squads. That was a claim by an American legislator, Marco Rubio. TFD (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• I am double checking my work now (I was balancing about six different sources), but recall that the Rubio claim came after videos were produced ... the calls clearly came from the ANC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• OK, I added these two quotes from sources (El Nacional and Miami Herald, but there were others), where the El Nacional quote was actually stronger than what I included in the article, and the Miami Herald does not attribute the original stance to Rubio. What they did say about Rubio, and I did not include, is his comparison and condemnation after the fact.

  El Nacional says "fusilamiento", which I first had as "execution", then changed to "shooting", but the better translation is probably "execution by shooting". What adjustments do you suggest? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• • According to the Miami Herald, when María León, a member of the ANC, said that tribunals should be set up to try traitors, the crowd replied firing squad. TFD (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

    yes ... aren't we saying the same thing? The "crowd" was the ANC? They called for firing squad. I am confused about what you are asking/stating (I'll be away from computer for a few hours, back in this evening). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, are you asking that we attribute it to the Miami Herald? But El Nacional and multiple other sources also have it ... so that seems mislead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't clear to me who Leon was speaking to, but it was the ANC. It's not clear however whether there is sufficient support in the ANC for tribunals. TFD (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The chants were made by ANC members; the important thing is that this was recorded, but it was only a response to the speech. It hasn't been proposed in the Constituent Assembly, as far as I know. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Correct (TFD, perhaps because I saw it first on social media, I understood that it was her speech before the ANC.) So, is the text OK now, or are adjustments needed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Did she mention Cuba? If not, then the comparison should be attributed to Rubio or removed. TFD (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see now ... it read as if Leon said the part about Cuba tribunals, when it was the Miami Herald that drew the historical reference to her words about tribunals; I added the quote from the Miami Herald, and attributed it to them. (Rubio's comparison was to the firing squad portion.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Singing Guaido's praises in the "Public Perception" section

Regardless of what you think of president-in-exile (I support him, personally), the quote by Andres Oppenheimer isn't encylopedic material. By its mere presence on what is supposed to be a fact-based website, it's presented as fact. 67.80.164.161 (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I would like to see some sort of overview of the comments. It's not helpful to readers to read that he has been praised by some people they have never heard of, but criticized by other people they have never heard of. TFD (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

TFD, are you aware of another article that does that well, one that we might consider as a sample? It's hard for me to imagine how to discuss perception without attribution: an example would help, particularly since sometimes Misplaced Pages has to attribute to a person, other times to a publication. To IP 67's comment, I am not seeing the distinction between Oppenheimer, Shifter, The Nation, The Guardian or any other person/source quoted. Perhaps IP 67 could explain what about the Oppenheimer comment is different than any other perception cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Assembly

Was he elected in 2015 to the assembly from one of the first-past-the-post constituencies in Vargas, or from the proportional list seats for Vargas? And more than that, how many seats are their for these two different kinds of constituencies? This isn't even really made apparent on the article for the assembly about how the electoral system works. How many of each kind of seats does Vargas get? --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: who may know, and @Kingsif: who I think added the election tables (that I could never figure out). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I did a little reseach after asking this and was able to find that he was elected from one of the first-past-the-post constituencies, but all of my other questions still stand. It seems like two seats were elected from this FPTP constituency (and also two from the proportional list constituency), but I'm still really curious if every one of these also elects the exact same number of seats. Really a question more appropriate for the Assembly article, I know, but if anyone can answer it here and provide a source for the information, that would be great. I would like to add this information to the Assembly page, and perhaps someone can also add the name of the constituency for Guaido in the infobox and the article here. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Possibly the biggest issue is that since 2010 there's been changes in the voting systems. Misplaced Pages's latest update on that is 2010. Kingsif (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

This weekend has been long, sorry for taking long to appear. I'm not sure if I understand the question, but as far as I know each state has their own electoral districts, each one with a deputy to choose. The candidate to win more votes in that district is elected, which means that there can be deputies from different parties in the same state. I'm not sure if I understand the difference from the proportional list. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems a rather one-sided look at him

Can we have more than one opinion and list of cherry-picked "facts" His involvement in neo-liberal groups, for instance. There is this article: https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-making-of-juan-guaido-how-the-us-regime-change-laboratory-created-venezuela-coup-leader/254387/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.71.18.23 (talk) 18:58, May 1, 2019 (UTC)

Please review Misplaced Pages's WP:BLP policy, and old discussions about that source in archives here. Also, MintPress News does not strike me as something that I would use to write a BLP. The few valid points made are already covered by higher quality sources, if not refuted by them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

This story was originally published by TheGrayZone.com and is written by Max Blumenthal and Dan Cohen, both well-known and award-winning journalists. Obviously you did not read it. I do not see much of anything in this Misplaced Pages info about Guaido that corresponds to how far to the right he is and his support of violence. These days, some "well-known" news sources are captured by our government. Your comment that the "few valid points" made concerns me about where you get your info. And I would like to have you point out where those points are in this description and which ones have been refuted by which sources.

Just the title alone of that article yells "WP:FRINGE" as loudly as it can get Cambalachero (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is at the forefront of neoliberal propaganda, so don't expect something like that here.

Minor discussion about phonetics 3

@IvanScrooge98:: I apologize for not being clear. This has come up a couple of times. Look for Talk:Juan_Guaidó/Archive_1#Minor_discussion_about_phonetics_2. I'm still waiting for a WP guideline for this kind of problems. Also a "Venezuela pronunciation" tag was added. Surely the audio file has to change. --MaoGo (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@MaoGo: I understand, the point is 1. that transcription links to a help page where ‹h› is not listed nor explained, and 2. as you said there is a discrepant audio file. Possibly the peculiar Venezuelan pronunciation is a little too specific and a general Southern American IPA as used elsewhere with {{IPA-es}} may be fine. Otherwise, we have to change/remove the audio and use {{IPA-all}}. Regards. イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 09:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: I could work on explaining /h/ in the IPA. I can also work on the audio file but it would take a few days. I will change to IPA all meanwhile. Again we do not have enough guidelines for this. --MaoGo (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I can't help in this area other than to say that MaoGo is right on the pronunciation. Is it not just possible for someone to do an audio file? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I personally do not like to register audio files. Let me see if I can find somebody to do it. --MaoGo (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: included now. Now we need an audio. --MaoGo (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Bias

I tagged the article as biased and in need of clean up with this edit summary:

Tag as biased and in need of clean up. I found more than one sentence that did not reflect the material in the cited WP:RS. In comparison with wikipedia articles in other languages, this article shows a strong bias. The WP:RS says that he is the self-appointed president and strongly disputed, but you would not know that from reading the first two sentences of the article. The WP:LEDE fails to mention how recently he became head of the National Assembly.

Examples of sentences that make statements that do not reflect what is in the cited WP:RS:

The National Assembly declared Guaidó had assumed the powers and duties of president, and continued to plan to remove Maduro. They called for demonstrations on 23 January, the 61st anniversary of the overthrow of dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez.

References

1. Phillips, Tom (11 January 2019). "Venezuela: opposition leader declares himself ready to assume presidency". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 24 January 2019.
2. "Juan Guaidó: Me apego a los artículos 333, 350 y 233 para lograr el cese de la usurpación y convocar elecciones libres con la unión del pueblo, FAN y comunidad internacional". www.asambleanacional.gob.ve. Retrieved 24 January 2019.
3. "Maduro faces off with U.S. over Venezuela rival's power claim". PBS. 24 January 2019. Retrieved 28 January 2019.

Compare this article with the similar articles in other languages:

• Spanish
• Chinese
• Russian
• French
• Turkish

--David Tornheim (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: since I wrote none of the text you are discussing, and haven't looked at the sources, I am going to for now address the issue of other language wikis. Every other language I have looked at does not adhere to the strict policies we do, often has unreliably to unsourced text, and Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. Saying this article is biased because of a comparison to other Wikis is off. Please do provide a list of sources where you find problems (I have found many myself as I have dug into text that was here when I started editing), but please do not expect another language wiki to be a guide for en.wiki. Misplaced Pages is a poor source for comparison, and an example for nothing, and I'm not going to that level. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Separately, to the issues; as I understand it, you have tagged the article as biased based on two sentences where you found problems with reliable sources? Would it not be easier just to fix those? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif, ZiaLater, and Jamez42:, this is text that was here before I started editing and I've not read the old sources. Would you all like to have a look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: It seems like it was added (or reinserted) by you in a shower of edits . Anyway, it was just a misplacement of a source, the actual sources appears two line after "With massive numbers of demonstrators coming out on 23 January in cities throughout Venezuela and across the world,". --MaoGo (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@MaoGo:, look what I just found ...

• ref name=CNN23Jprotest "Protestas en Venezuela: miles de personas participan en manifestaciones masivas contra el gobierno de Maduro". BBC NewsMundo (in Spanish). 23 January 2019. Retrieved 28 January 2019.

A BBC source with a CNN ref tag name. Some shower of edits :) So somewhere some citations got mixed up. I'll sandbox the whole paragraph and try to track down what went missing. Thanks for finding that! And now you all know why I name refs that way instead of using those dreadful numbers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

References

1. "Protestas en Venezuela: miles de personas participan en manifestaciones masivas contra el gobierno de Maduro". BBC NewsMundo (in Spanish). 23 January 2019. Retrieved 28 January 2019.

I do not know about the other languages, but I can talk about the French version, and the French version has a lot of issues of translation from early versions of this article and it is currently out of date.--MaoGo (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I looked at the Spanish one. The last semi-significant edit was 29 March, the lead is dreadfully full of useless detail, and it has none of the characteristics described by David Tornheim, so I'm still not sure what we are being asked (besides for someone to get in here and fix errors found in two sentences). And without some indication from actual reliable sources, rather than a Wiki, not sure what's next. David? Can you provide a specific of which of the other Wikis has what you're after, so we can look at the sources used? The French and Spanish at least aren't doing it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

You mean I got a source in the wrong place? Gee, that sounds just like the kind of mistake I would make :) One thing I'm sure of: if I fix things, my edit count goes up. So, I will have to leave it to all of you :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you telling me the issue in one case is over 23 de Enero being the 61st anniversary and that source being two lines later? Oh, dear. That is the kind of information that doesn't even require a source, by policy. (Sky is blue stuff.) But I overcite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia I do not understand why you feel these concerns were addressed to you. I never suggested you put that material in the article. I have no idea who put those two sentences in. Does it really matter? The problem is that they do not reflect what is in the WP:RS for the citations, which says things like:

* Opposition leader declares himself ready to assume presidency

* Juan Guaidó said he has constitutional right to assume leadership because Maduro is an illegitimate 'usurper'

* “We aren’t victims. We are survivors ... and we will lead this country towards the glory it deserves,” Guaidó added, calling on the people, the international community and, crucially, Venezuela’s armed forces to support him.

* But he called a day of nationwide demonstrations for 23 January to intensify pressure on Maduro

The sources make very clear these announcements come directly from Guaidó. But our article misleadingly makes it sound like the National Assembly is authoring these proclamations, as if they had passed resolutions. Hence, those two sentences are not WP:NPOV. It gives the misleading suggestion that the National Assembly is backing him far more fully than is stated in the sources.

The article is filled with similar problems which has been noted by other editors.

I mentioned other problems in my edit summary, but those have been ignored.

I never suggested that foreign language Wikipedias are WP:RS. But they are less biased than our article is. They make it far more clear the extent to which the leadership of Guaidó is self-proclaimed and disputed. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, David Tornheim, but I wasn't editing this article in its early days, and that is why I pinged the editors who were so they can have a look at that specific text; they can deal with the sourcing to content concerns faster than I can. MaoGo did determine that I placed a reference after the fact on the 23 de Enero text in the wrong place. I can't help much on the earlier text, that was developed before I was editing here. And please don't communicate about a serious issue like POV via edit summary. In my work, which occurred later, if there is something I need to address, I am sure I will be pinged. Did I say issues had been addressed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy on here. Unless more examples are given, I will boldly remove the template. Comparing wikis here is not a good statement unless more detail is given. Also there are many users working in Venezuelan articles right now, even the smallest issue can be quickly corrected if given exactly where to look. --MaoGo (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the tags, as they were removed after less than 3 hours, and you have not legitimately addressed any of my concerns. I noticed that editors were selectively invited to this discussion. Why have established editors, some of which have expressed concerns about content being biased have not been invited to the discussion too, e.g. Carrite, Kashmiri, The Four Deuces, Huldra? Numerous editors have noted bias in this article. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

David Tornheim, could you please point me towards where this selective inviting of some editors happened? Because I seem to have been left out, and I don't see anything like that on this page. I don't recall ever seeing Carrite here before? To my knowledge, The Four Deuces, who is a regular here, has the page watchlisted, and I imagine Kashmiri does too.

I am hoping you can lower the temperature a bit and give some examples of things you'd like addressed: pointing us to another Misplaced Pages though, ugh ... that's not a great standard to aspire to ... It seems I placed a citation two sentences after where you were looking for the information in it, but am waiting to hear what else we might do to satisfy your concerns (as long as you don't expect us to use Misplaced Pages as a model :) As of now, you've listed not a single thing editors can be working on, so the article tag isn't very helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, now I see the ping you are referencing: it was mine. Yes, those are the editors who were involved in the earlier stages of this article development, while I was not actively editing, and they are the ones who know the earlier text. That is why I asked them to look in. Someone else looked in first and found that a wayward citation was actually mine, and was added after the fact. Pinging editors who can fix something fast seems reasonable to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit summary to text

Translating edit summary requests to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

On the edit summary:@David Tornheim: in your edit summary you recalled a non-RS discussion with an IP, an archived unelaborated comment by an IP and an archived uncontroversial discussion. Two of them are from two months ago, when the article was in a completely different shape. All of those discussion were addressed, without further complains. Using old conversations that claim bias is not enough to prove bias. Again, the best way would be to give examples so we can address them fast enough instead of discussing politics. The template has been added under insufficient motivation. Please explain. --MaoGo (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Noting the edit summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

This edit summary says:

• The WP:RS says that he is the self-appointed president and strongly disputed, but you would not know that from reading the first two sentences of the article. The WP:LEDE fails to mention how recently he became head of the National Assembly.)

So, which RS would that be? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead citations

• I was pinged in here, apparently to give an opinion, so I will. I think the lead shows signs of factional armwrestling — all the footnotes are a bad sign. There should be certain facts about Guaidó upon which all should agree. The fact that Team A is emphasizing that he's under investigation for alleged malfeasance and that Team B thinks he's the runaway popular favorite in some poll or another should all be tossed, in my opinion. We're not going to solve the Nicaraguan revolution or coup or power struggle or whatever you want to call it with a Misplaced Pages article. The Venezuelan people will ultimately decide that issue. Guaidó is one of the participants; we should note that fact and provide his biography without commentary upon either his character, his international friends, or his relative popularity. If you are worked up about those things on either side, let it go — walk away from this piece. Trust me, it's not going to influence the outcome of the contest one way or the other. I think the piece, in general, is better than it was. Just the facts, friends, fuck the politics. Carrite (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree that we should focus on the facts--or more precisely on representing WP:NPOV what is in the reliable sources. I pointed out cases where the text is not reflective of the content in the sources: The first two sentences are a good example. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Carrite: As of this version, here are the citations in the lead. I've removed the polls and that factional stuff. I don't really consider this an improvement but ... meh ... neither do I care one way or the other. The problem now is the lead is short and we'll have to decide what else should go there, but that kind of work is better done once the issues in the body of the article are settled.

• is recognized as acting President of Venezuela by 54 governments.

  Statement that a reader will expect to find in the lead (how much support does this guy have?). Citation there is reasonable because it's hard data, and if it is removed, someone will cn it.

• 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.

  This is a citation to one source that gives a broad summary of the who supports/who doesn't, and chosen specifically to avoid getting overly specific. Seems appropriate and warranted; reader will want an overview of who supports him, but avoid detail.

• Shortly after Guaidó became President of the National Assembly, he was briefly detained by authorities.

  This statement is cited because Kashmiri was very specific about some aspect of the who, why or when; I don't remember. I'd be very happy to lose the citation, as the text is covered in the body of the article, and not controversial. It doesn't need to be arm-wrestled, but it was. I don't remember the specifics, but could go back in archives to see.

• is the subject of a probe into accusations that he helped foreign countries interfere in internal matters,

  indifferent to whether the citation here is removed, but there is no arm wrestling; it's a straight forward statement, not controversial, covered in the article body.

• He was named to Time magazine's list of 100 most influential people in the world for 2019.

  Appropriate for the lead, also in the body of the article and cited in the body, but if we remove the citation from the lead, someone will probably cn it.

Awaiting your feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, so I was also pinged here, so I will give my 2 cents. First of all, I un−watched this article ages ago, as I thought the pro−Juan Guaidó prejudice absurd. He might be "recognized as acting President of Venezuela by 54 governments"...but he is no more closer to being actual President of Venezuela, than I am. That is the fact, and presenting him as "President of Venezuela Acting" is insanely absurd. Huldra (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Huldra, couldn't agree more. You are raising one of the classic reasons that INFOBOXES SUCK, because you are talking not about article content, but infobox parameters. I don't do infoboxes. But edit war that out of there and end up at ArbCom. In my world, the infobox would be deleted, because infoboxes cannot convey nuance. Considering the long-standing problems surrounding infobox parameters on Misplaced Pages, my suggestion is to remove that. Which I will do now. Watch it get edit-warred back in by infobox warriors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Huldra, there you go. People just gotta have their blipping useless infoboxes. Ballers19, in my edit summary I linked very clearly to this discussion. Did you read it? If having an infobox is going to generate POV, why not delete it? The long-standing problem with infoboxes is that you cannot convey nuance in a parameter, and this is a nuanced situation. Infoboxes bring nothing but trouble, and provide no information that is not already in the article. In this case, it's a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not up to a single editor to remove the main infobox, especially with an edit summary depicting this as a consensus. Infoboxes play an important role, for example in search engine results. Their structure offers a fair degree of flexibility - we simply need to use it. — kashmīrī  12:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

We'll need a separate discussion of how to handle Huldra's concern; the problem is not generated by content, it is caused by an infobox parameter, as they don't allow for nuance. (We haven't had an infobox consensus discussion here, so one editor can be BOLD about it; it was reverted, now we need to figure out how to solve this.) According to Venezuelan Statute, Gauido's title in Venezuela is Acting president, and many reliable sources source that. But to put that wording in an infobox, without context, causes problems. Ideas might be explored in a new and separate discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Applicability of that statute to the situation is debatable, the reason being that Guaidó's presidential claim is disputed (to which I think everyone here agrees). If I got it right, he is Acting President according to one reading of the constitution (the supporters argue that Maduro's last win was invalid because of irregularities in the election process which went against the basic tenets of democracy); he is not Acting President according to another reading (which argues that the irregularities alone do not invalidate the elections and that anyway it's not up to the parliament to rule on elections' validity). We need to be extremely balanced here. Misplaced Pages's role is not to create facts. We also should avoid selecting sources that support only one side of a political conflict (which is an increasingly challenging task in today's world where the powerful media conglomerates follow the political line of their owners or political backers). — kashmīrī  17:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

^agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Bias in first two sentences of the article

Above and in this edit summary, I said:

The WP:RS says that he is the self-appointed president and strongly disputed, but you would not know that from reading the first two sentences of the article.

--David Tornheim (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kashmiri, Huldra, Carrite, and David Tornheim: you can see here the edit where Kashmiri removed the very balance some of you are asking for. The text before Kashmiri's edit was:

• Guaidó's claim to the interim presidency has been recognized by many governments across the Americas and the world and rejected by others, with some calls for dialogue to resolve the dispute.

The text after Kashmiri's edit was:

• Guaidó's claim to the interim presidency has been recognized by around 50 governments, with some calls for dialogue to resolve the dispute.

I think you will all find that, presented with requests based on policy and reliable sources, editors here are willing and ready to comply, but we are getting mixed messages (with not a single reliable source you want incorporated), and you are criticizing this article for missing content that Kashmiri removed and insisted did not belong here (over my objections for balance). Pleasing four masters is not possible. You can see right here, how I bowed to Kashmiri to delete text you are all now wanting back, concluding with my reminder to Kashmiri that this would come back to haunt us:

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

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Not resolved. see further comment below, starting with "Sorry" You have not addressed my concerns above. What is the hurry to take off the tags? --David Tornheim (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

David Tornheim, I was quoting (I thought clearly) an old remark showing that Kashmiri did not want that balancing text inserted. I did not say anything was resolved. I have reformatted the post as a blockquote and with bolding to aid readers who may be in a hurry. I am not, nor have I indicated any such thing anywhere on the page; perhaps you are? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Sorry I did not notice the comment that is emphasized in green by the block quote was from February 2019. Anyone who skims this article may make the same mistake. The organization of this discussion leaves something to be desired, and I will attempt break some up into individual concerns.

Another editor, MaoGo, removed the bias tags less than three hours after I posted them. I do not believe that is a sufficient amount of time to allow all editors who have this article watchlisted to have an opportunity to weigh in. That editor is again asserting that there are no issues, when I (and Kashmiri here have made quite clear that there still are, and obviously we are still discussing those issues. Of note, Kashimi said:

* * * A number of editors have expressed reservations about the obvious, blatant bias in the article, only to be met with rebuttals. I will also add here the worrying use of manipulation techniques, characteristic of propaganda pieces (use of peacock terms and phrases; passing of propaganda terms as objective; selective citations; etc.) * * * — kashmīrī  10:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I cannot spend 24/7 working on this article, and I doubt most other editors can either. Some level of patience is required to improve this article to the point that it is WP:NPOV. There is no deadline.

SandyGeorgia: I do appreciate your willingness to discuss issues with the first two sentences in the WP:LEDE. I will continue discussing that with you (and anyone else) soon. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Great, and thanks for the apology. On the organization of the page, starting off by providing concerns about POV (a serious matter) in an edit summary, rather than a well-organized presentation on talk might be part of the problem :)

As to MaoGo, I can read; I know what MaoGo did. In MaoGo's defense, this article's topic has been on the mainpage for three grueling months (which to my knowledge is almost unheard of), and we have had numerous IPs and non-informed editors enter commentary that has nothing to do with Misplaced Pages policy. When an article is on the mainpage, everyone with a keyboard has an opinion. Your initial presentation could have been done in a more serious manner, and I understand MaoGo's reaction based on the shotgun presentation.

I am only now figuring out there is a big cockup in the paragraph you first brought to attention because some citations got crossed, and I will work on that (thank you for catching that).

And I'd ask you all to get yourselves in some sort of agreement on the scope of the article. Kashmiri wanted none of the politics here; all of it in the presidential crisis article, straight basic biographical info here, and insisted we take out a lot of text, so what the heck.

There is no deadline, I am not in a hurry, but neither is it thoughtful to tie up people's time and an article without presenting organized specifics based on reliable sources that you list. Your time is limited, so is mine (it's spring out there, and my manicure doesn't do itself); let's use our time well. Of course I will patiently discuss, respond and address anything that is reasonable and based on quality sources; I corralled prima donnas at FAC and FAR for years. There's no deadline, but there is an expectation that when you tag an article, you will give us something to work with, and hopefully in an organized fashion, rather than spray from a pellet gun. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I wrote the below response before seeing your response above . I have not had a chance to read this most recent response it yet. I believe I am done editing for tonight. Thanks for the discussion. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• @SandyGeorgia: I disagree that "Kashmiri removed the very balance some of you are asking for." In fact, Kashmiri's edit to the first two sentences was indeed an improvement and more WP:NPOV, but at some point that got reverted and the first two sentences again look like they did before Kashmiri's edit.

I do agree that keeping in the text saying 50 countries agree with Guaido--while not mentioning that other major countries like Russia, China, etc. disagreed--did make this sentence buried in the second paragraph less WP:NPOV. That material did find its way back into the WP:LEDE, so I'm a bit confused as to why you are bringing up this old edit which has already been reverted.

The problem with the first two sentences of the WP:LEDE is that they make it sound like Misplaced Pages endorses Guaidó. With readers' short attention span, a significant percentage of readers will not get to the middle of paragraph two that mentions the other countries that disagree. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not parsing your second to last para. Kashmiri's version had no mention whatsover of those opposed to Guaido, which I thought odd and unbalanced, but finally agreed to disagree. The "familiar geopolitical sides" source appeared later and provides a way to present better context than a tally of countries. I'm bringing it up again to make sure we agree that both sides should be represented, which kashmiri disagreed with, and that both the tally and the geopolitical should be presented, because that's what virtually every reliable source has done for months now. And if saying what practically every reliable source says (is recognized as acting President of Venezuela by 54 governments)—which I don't see—makes it sound like Misplaced Pages endorses Guaidó, them why not add back the balance that we had before in the same sentence? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Another thought: at one point, we had compromised on "partially recognized acting president" (with a link to the list of countries) to completely avoid the counting construction. That always left me wondering which part of him was recognized: waist up or waist down. For several months now, reliable sources have been using the tally, 54, to explain who he is; finding an alternate expression to eliminate counting might work to lower your concern that it "makes it sound like Misplaced Pages endorses Guaido". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

General scope

I may be misunderstanding, but my read so far is that Kashmiri wanted minimum politics in the article, cut a lot of what I called balance saying that belonged only in the presidential crisis article, make this straight bio. I am interpreting that David T wants more info about the level of dispute while Kashmiri wanted none, and Carrite wants no arm wrestling. Since it was Kashmiri that removed most of what some of you are now asking for, more guidance is needed on how to please all of you. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the different positions taken, so please clarify. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• David T wants more info about the level of dispute. No. I want the article to report accurately (and WP:NPOV) the facts regarding Guaidó's rapid rise to power and on his self-proclaimed presidency as they are articulated in the WP:RS. More is not required--accuracy is required, particularly in the WP:LEDE.

I have no problem with having significant details of the recent events of his claimed presidency in the WP:BODY, as long as it is WP:NPOV and accurate. The WP:LEDE should probably be shorted and made more biographical.

Citations: I do not see a problem with too many citations in the WP:LEDE. I believe Carrite's concern about citations is that their necessity was a result of problems from the text, text that was not WP:NPOV. Removing the citations will not fix biased text, but actually exacerbate the problem, making the obvious bias even harder to detect. Instead, the text must be fixed to be WP:NPOV and accurately reflect what is in the cited (or uncited) WP:RS of the WP:LEDE.

I agree with Kashmiri's statement A number of editors have expressed reservations about the obvious, blatant bias in the article, only to be met with rebuttals. I will also add here the worrying use of manipulation techniques, characteristic of propaganda pieces (use of peacock terms and phrases; passing of propaganda terms as objective; selective citations; etc.. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Understood in general terms. (We disagree on the history, and the extent to which RS are represented, but getting in to that is not productive, and it has been repeated enough.)

You said: The WP:LEDE should probably be shorted and made more biographical.

If the kinks are worked out of the body of an article first, the lead flows more easily by following the lead guideline:

The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents ... The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.

To be "made more biographical" is not precisely what the guideline calls for, and this article is long enough now to have a properly summarized four-paragraph lead, per MOS:LEADLENGTH. If you don't mind being patient, I'd rather not get bogged down in this and find it is a better use of time to focus on content and work on the lead later. Too much time is lost in back-and-forth if one tries to tune a lead before the body is nailed down. For now, I pulled info from the lead per Carrite, and the lead is too short and does not summarize the article. But later on that ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

General questions

Two other things:

David Tornheim, you have offered the French, Spanish, Chinese, Russian and Turkish Wikipedias as directions you want us to go in.

• MaoGo says the French article is outdated, and it's easy to see it's tiny, and I can't glean much from there; please explain what reliable source from there you want us to use.
• I've looked at the Spanish article, and it doesn't fit your characterization. It is clearly a translation of an earlier version of this article, but quite outdated with no recent work, and a ton of irrelevant detail poured into the lead. Since I speak Spanish, I think I can state with some certainty that there's nothing there; if there's a source from there you want this article to use, please provide. (I've also looked BTW at Italian and Portuguese, nothing there.)
• So that leaves China, Russia and Turkey. Since I speak Spanish, I don't have need of translation tools and have never learned to use them. I have no clue how I am supposed to look at those articles to pull out reliable sources, so please pass me a cluestick, and let me know which reliable source in those articles you want used. All I can tell from the Russian article is that it's minimal, and has only 15 sources. I don't know how else to satisfy your concern since I can't read those articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Please read my previous comments about the other Wikipedias. I did not say I "offered the French, Spanish, Chinese, Russian and Turkish Wikipedias as directions you want us to go in." . I offered them for comparison to show that our article is biased. With multiple editors weighing in right now agreeing that there is bias, it would likely be more productive to discuss ways to eliminate the bias rather than try to copy the material from the other less mature articles. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Another query. David Tornheim, if I am reading correctly, you are objecting to the sentences where you say the content isn't verified by the source because Guaido announcements and positions are stated in National Assembly voice. There's been kind of a shotgun approach here, so I may misunderstanding your statements. If my understanding is correct, Guaido was/is President of the National Assembly, and often speaks in that capacity. How would you have the article distinguish? Please advise if I am reading correctly your concerns, and an example of how you would deal with him having dual positions would help. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Guaido was/is President of the National Assembly, and often speaks in that capacity. That's like saying that Mitch McConnell speaks for the Senate and Nancy Pelosi speaks for the House of Representatives. Legislative bodies typically articulate opinions via Resolution_(law) not via the whims of the chair. Perhaps the rules in Venezuela are different, but I doubt it. I'd like some WP:RS if you want to claim that.

Regardless of what the actual rules of National Assembly, the WP:RS that I have reviewed says unambiguously that he was speaking for himself, while (in my opinion) his statements deliberately give the impression that *He* considers himself to be speaking on behalf of the entire country. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'll look at this with respect to the sources then when I have time; Jamez42 is the one who understands Venezuela parliament the best though. He might offer specifics and elaborate whether there are differences relative to normally functioning legislative bodies in other countries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

From what I gather Guaidó has needed to voice the agreement of most, if not all, the oppositions parties in the National Assembly. Political consultant Pedro Pedrosa has claimed that the Statute Governing the Transition to Democracy has actually prevented Guaidó from taken some actions, while acting in agreement with the Assembly. Of course, this is more of a political analysis than a procedural one. Formal statements by the Assembly are called acuerdos. If needed, I can look up in the Internal Regulation of the National Assembly, which includes all of its rules. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Jamez42, I haven't yet found the time to sort out that misnamed citation in the section that concerns David, and I am busy all day. As soon as I get to it, I will ping you if I am still hung up on the way to address this concern using the NA procedures. We are all very busy editors; it's not necessary for you to take too much time on this until I can get the rest of that para sorted. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: It's alright, thank you for your concern :) I forgot to answer this some time ago, I'm currently busy too but I have some time to answer. I don't think I can think the citation for the time being either, though, so I'll be alert of any advancements. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

FAQ needed about false allegations of paid editing

User talk:SandyGeorgia#15 minutes of non-fame (Paid Editing)

I suspect an FAQ about the false allegations on Reddit are going to be needed on Venezuela articles. For now, there is discussion on my talk, but it is not very well organized, since I was furious when I wrote it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

While I strongly sympathize with the unpleasant experience of being accused of paid editing, I did want to note that it is possible for a passing observer to observe bias without that necessarily being linked to the Reddit allegations, or to you personally. Speaking for myself, I noticed severe slant in many articles about current events in Venezuela (not because of you specifically, to be clear) and I formed this opinion long before reading the posts on Reddit (which I wasn't aware of until you linked them on the uprising talk page). I understand that the allegations are frustrating but I hope that these unfortunate events don't close your mind to the possibility that the articles really are biased (just clearly not because of alleged paid editing on your part).

I say this only because this section (and the ones you've put on related articles), along with the associated edit summaries (e.g., "there goes the neighbourhood") carry an implication that the reason for the bias tags are primarily due to the allegations, but evidence for that seems shaky to me, and I would prefer to assume good faith (while acknowledging that that's difficult when you are being subjected to unreasonable allegations). The comment "there goes the neighbourhood" also sends a message that editors who have not previously edited on Venezuelan topics before are unwelcome, which I think would be better to avoid. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

An FAQ will still be needed. I have been a very high profile editor for many years. And I put this here in the hopes some people might stop by my talk and do the right thing: just ask :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I understand your view, but I just wanted to stress the importance of not throwing out criticism that may be legitimate along with the conspiratorial bathwater. I don't see any evidence that the bias tags added to this page had anything to do with the allegations on Reddit, and I'm concerned that if we appear to tar users who express dissent with that brush, it will have a chilling effect. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

It's hardly up to other editors to know whether someone is a paid editor or not. In my experience, such accusations are usually baseless - the vast majority are usually GF editors who just feel strongly for a particular cause. Here, I think we are facing a similar situation. A number of editors have expressed reservations about the obvious, blatant bias in the article, only to be met with rebuttals. I will also add here the worrying use of manipulation techniques, characteristic of propaganda pieces (use of peacock terms and phrases; passing of propaganda terms as objective; selective citations; etc.). As a long-standing editor, I did attempt to restore the balance to the article a few months ago, but one or two editors objected so strongly that I gave up. Life has better attractions than a Misplaced Pages fight. As of now, the only NPOV section of the article in my view is the "Electoral history" section - kudos to its author(s). All the others are thinly veiled attempts to legitimise one of two conflicted politicians in Venezuela, both with questionable legitimacy. It looks like what may be called, "the making of a leader", we have seen it in history many times. But I can't edit against someone who seemingly has unlimited time to edit on this topic. — kashmīrī  10:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I just went through all the comments on the reddit thread, most of which are critical of the assumption because of how ridiculous it is, many saying that as a complex and controversial subject the editors won’t be wide ranging because of prolonged interest and knowledge. I think that accurately sums up the situation and it’s pretty clear from our collective other edits that we aren’t bots or shills. I don’t think it’s a thing to worry about, just be angry and ignore. Kingsif (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm one outta two on "angry and ignore". The charge is out there, and has to be answered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Operation Freedom

I added a fourth paragraph to the WP:LEDE summarizing the material of the section Juan_Guaidó#Operation_Freedom. I invite further discussion. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I gave my general views, based on the lead guideline above. I generally avoid putting current events in the lead, and like to wait until we have the benefit of the perspective of time. I don't object to that text, and there's nothing wrong with it, but my view is that putting current news into the lead too quickly usually leads to stability and edit warring problems, as novice editors then want to chunk the whole story in to the lead. For example, the level of objection to the reliably sourced term "Freedom" has been a problem on other articles, and I might have waited for some consensus on that before adding a controversial term to the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Venezuela articles
• High-importance Venezuela articles
• Venezuela articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class South America articles
• Mid-importance South America articles
• South America articles needing attention
• WikiProject South America articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics