Jump to content

Talk:2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Introduction wording

[edit]

Elelch, please explain your edits that are placing back dated information (including the old title). WMrapids (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the attempted coup d'état of Pedro Castillo, and you are removing the final paragraph that refers precisely to the current state of Castillo's prison for such actions (which is a relevant information in relation to the topic of the article), and instead you are trying to put information about a decision of the constitutional court on the powers of Congress, which has nothing to do with the article (it could fit in the article of Peruvian political crisis 2017–present, not here). That it is even a false assertion, since the decision of the peruvian constitutional court refers only to the powers of congress to designate some positions (as the ombudsman), not to give absolute control of the government as you wrongly indicate. So, it just seems like an attempt to skew the content. Also, you insert a line in which you try to indicate that the majority of Peruvians are in favor of a new constitution when the existing references clearly say that neither before the attempted coup nor currently does such a majority exist. That is to say, the majority of Peruvians reject the change of constitution. It is another attempt to skew the article with incorrect information. Elelch (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I see your concerns, hopefully my edits have helped.
  • You keep putting back two "Background" sections, so please stop that.
  • There are multiple sources that raise concerns about the Constitutional Court, which is directly related to this crisis. That stays.
  • In the infobox, the El Comercio article (which we could use a less partisan source) you use to cite "Avoidance of anti-corruption procedures" as a cause does not state this. The article says that the ministers were surprised by Castillo's decision and that Peru Libre possibly sided with impeaching him, nothing about corruption. Replaced this with "Conflict with Congress".
  • The Al Jazeera article you use is about a police corruption investigation that is not directly related. This was replaced with information about allegations raised by the Attorney General.
  • Information about the massacres is unnecessary in the introduction. Removed.
  • The polls did say that respondents approved of a constituent assembly (69%), so this was clarified.
  • Poll wording in the "Public opinion" section was also improved.
WMrapids (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You keep trying to skew the article. The decision of the constitutional court on the powers of Congress has nothing to do with this article (it could fit in the article of Peruvian political crisis 2017–present, not here). The worst thing is that it is even a false assertion, since the decision of the peruvian constitutional court refers only to the powers of congress to designate some positions (as the ombudsman), not to give absolute control of the government as you wrongly indicate. As for the Constituent Assembly, there is a much more reliable source that indicates that the majority of Peruvians oppose it. The survey that you insist on referring to, was made only by telephone, an unreliable methodology, versus another that has been carried out at a national level with personal interviews that says the opposite. But the most important thing is the underlying issue, which is the change of constitution (which was the declared Pedro Castillo's goal) and on this point all the surveys (including the one you quote) indicate that at no time did the majority of Peruvians agree by changing the current constitution. So, what you are trying to put on the article tries to bias it to make the reader believe that one of Pedro Castillo's objectives (change of constitution) had majority support, when reliable sources indicate that this is not the case. Also, you do not explain why you want to delete a duly referenced paragraph on the situation of Pedro Castillo's prison as a consequence of the coup attempt, relevant information directly related to this article.--Elelch (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you are making many false accusations, so please review WP:CIVIL. The sources clearly indicate that the Constitutional Court gave Congress the power to not be overseen by the judiciary branch, not just ombudsman decisions. About the constituent assembly, the polls indicated that it is supported while with a new constitution, it is strangely not supported. Castillo proposed a constituent assembly, which is why this is included instead of the new constitution wording. Regarding the prison paragraph, let me take a look about placing that back if appropriate. But please, stop with the accusations because that is not helpful. WMrapids (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So the sentence "Castillo has been placed in "preventive detention" for 18 months and faces trial for rebellion and conspiracy" is still present in the introduction. Is that what you meant? Also, you keep placing in two "Background" sections with your revert edits. Please be more mindful of your edits. WMrapids (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources that you are eliminating clearly indicate that the majority of Peruvians are not in favor of a constituent assembly, let alone a new constitution. It is not logical that you edit saying otherwise. In addition, the final referenced paragraph that you are removing does not repeat information, but rather provides the final status of Castillo's prison order after the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal. Finally, the ruling of the Peruvian constitutional court on the appointment of the ombudsman and the reorganization of SUNEDU has nothing to do here. The problem regarding the appointment of the ombudsman (and the legislation about SUNEDU) was a dispute between Congress and the judiciary, where Pedro Castillo had nothing to do with it (even the executive branch has no prerogative in the appointment of the Ombudsman). Therefore, there is no reason to place that information in an this article. Before editing, check the direct source, which is the court ruling that you can see here.--Elelch (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:PRIMARY. Again, you are placing a messy edit with two "Background" sections. The sources stated that 69% approved of a constituent assembly in the weeks after the event. The sources say that the decision by the Constitutional Court makes Congress immune to the judiciary. WMrapids (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from deleting referenced paragraphs (There are 4 references that indicate that the majority of Peruvians -53.7%- are against calling a constituent assembly) and instead putting information that has nothing to do with the article. Without any support, you keep introducing information about a constitutional court ruling that has nothing to do with the coup attempt, as I have explained above.--Elelch (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your concerns should be addressed now in my most recent edit.
  • Polling information is properly presented in timeframes and polling companies are attributed
  • Information about Castillo's arrest and corruption charges is in the introduction
  • Two "Background" sections are no longer present
  • Wording issues were addressed
Please, please be more aware of you mass revert edits as they were sloppy. WMrapids (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Although I agree on certain things, I find myself again in need of neutralizing certain statements that try to bias the content:

  • Your phrase: "calls for the creation of a constituent assembly had existed since the 2020 Peruvian protests" is misleading, since it falsely gives the impression that since that year the majority of Peruvians were asking for a constituent assembly, when this is not the case. In fact, different opinion polls performed before the Castillo's coup show that only a (minority) sector of the population asked for such a thing (you can see here, here and here. Therefore, it is necessary to make that clarification: "Since the 2020 Peruvian protests, a minority sector of the Peruvian population has called for the creation of a constituent assembly". Also, the source you provided to state that, for a brief time, after the coup attempt, the majority agreed to convene a constituent assembly (IEP survey), also says that this majority did not want to change the current constitution, but only to make it partial reforms. Then a subsequent CPI poll shows that the majority rejects both. Therefore, without deleting your text, I am making such precision rewriting this way: "...although, in the weeks following Castillo's actions, a polling from IEP found that a majority of Peruvians supported the creation of a constituent assembly, not for a change of Constitution but to reform the current one, while a survey conducted in April 2023 by a separate company, CPI, showed that the majority rejects both, a new constituent assembly and the change of the current constitution".
  • The Phrase: "Asserting that two controversial votes of confidence occurred between his former Prime Minister Aníbal Torres and Congress, Castillo would state that such actions provided a legal basis to dissolve the legislative body" is not supported by the source. Even Castillo's message to the nation announcing the dissolution of Congress did not refer to this fact as a basis (as Martin Vizcarra did in 2019 when he dissolved the Congress by this cause). So the paragraph is deleted.
  • Finally, the paragraph related to the ruling of the Constitutional Court on the powers of Congress to designate certain officials has no relation to this article. This could go well at Peruvian political crisis (2017–present), but not here. I remind you that this ruling originates from a dispute between Congress and the judiciary, where the executive branch has nothing to do with it.

I think that in this way the text is better balanced and bias is avoided.--Elelch (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Going to address your concerns:
  • "calls for the creation of a constituent assembly had existed since the 2020 Peruvian protests" is misleading
    • First off, not my phrase, but it is an acceptable edit by a separate user. Wording can be changed on that to say something like "some called for a constituent assembly".
  • [Motion of confidence] paragraph is deleted
    • The source directly says "Thus, Aníbal Torres resigned from his position as prime minister, thus opening the doors to Castillo to dissolve the Congress. Well, the rule says that after the legislators vote against a matter of trust, the Executive can form a new cabinet and request the second vote. If this is also voted against, the president can opt for dissolution. Knowing this context, the legislators initiated a third vacancy motion. On December 1, 73 congressmen voted in favor of holding the debate against Castillo, a debate that was scheduled for December 7." So yes, the source says exactly what the paragraph says. It stays.
  • the paragraph related to the ruling of the Constitutional Court on the powers of Congress to designate certain officials has no relation to this article
    • Castillo was discussing a Congressional dictatorship being established with the help of the Constitutional Court in his motion to dissolve Congress. Multiple sources say that this happened. It stays.
Thank you for expressing your concerns! WMrapids (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid editing by deleting all the improvements I've made without even reading them.

  • You are adding information that does not have any support (that could be considered bad faith), such as pointing out that the 44% of respondents agreed with Castillo's attempt to dissolve Congress according to an IEP poll, although the source does not say such a thing and on the contrary there is a source that you are deleting (IPSOS survey) that indicates that 63% of Peruvians were against the attempted coup.
  • Also, you are eliminating one of the causes of the coup that has references (avoid investigations for corruption), and all without first consulting it in the discussion.
  • You insist in putting a paragraph related to a dispute between the judiciary and Congress on the powers of the latter to designate certain officials which has no relation to this article. The "Congressional dictatorship" that you mentioned refers to the alleged obstructionism of Congress to Castillo's policies, but the ruling of the court refers to the appointment of officials in charge of congress, which has nothing to do with Castillo's policies or the execuvite branch. So that information is irrelevant for this article.
  • Castillo never invoked the double denial of confidence as support for his decision of dissolve the Congress. Tthat was a possibility mentioned by Aníbal Torres, but it never materialized, so the paragraph does not have to be maintained.
  • You are deleting for no reason the line that indicates that the attorney general denounced Castillo for acts of corruption during his administration. That line was placed by another user with the proper reference but you are removing them.

Your actions unfortunately reveal a bias in favor of Pedro Castillo (from your tenacious defense so that the title of the article does not mention the word coup). I agree that Castillo's point of view should be shown, and in fact the article does so in multiple sections, but you can't remove referenced information that doesn't favor him. The idea is that both are displayed so that the text is balanced and as neutral as possible. That's what I'm trying to achieve with my improvements, but unfortunately you insist on putting wrong information back. Please before editing discuss it here first..--Elelch (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not removing anything or placing anything that is not present in sources. You are completely attempting to manipulate the use of the talk page. WMrapids (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, please keep the edit as is for now:
  1. Both polls are present in a balanced manner
  2. The sources you use do not mention that he was avoiding investigations; one is a broken link and the other says "According to a source, he wasn't sure of all the votes of Peru Libre." This has nothing to do to avoiding corruption. Also, a better source that El Comercio (Peru) should be used as it has a history of bias against Castillo
  3. The actions of Congress and the Constitutional Court are directly related
  4. This is still present: "Attorney General of Peru Patricia Benavides, in violation of Article 117 of the Constitution of Peru, had previously said that Castillo was the head of a criminal organization and called on Congress to remove him from office, with legislators then attempting a third impeachment of Castillo."
I have repeated myself enough times to know that you understand that this information is present and sourced appropriately. At this point, you are engaged in WP:BATTLE behavior. Please make suggestions here and I can try to place them, but the blanket reverts need to stop. WMrapids (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the removed mentioned content, including the corruption investigations as a reason for the dissolvement, there also appears to be original research in the last edits, including the description of the Congress with a "far-right majority", whereas this doesn't appear anywhere in the cited references and the far-right party Popular Force only has 23 seats out of 130. The stable version of the introduction should remain, and further changes be discussed from there. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC) --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be ignoring the Foreign Policy source. Also, again, there needs to be a better source regarding the corruption as a cause for the infobox. Also, please stop WP:HOUNDING. Your behavior on the project is becoming worrisome. WMrapids (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Aréat and Elelch: so they can better explain their disagreement with the last changes to the introduction. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Opinion

[edit]

A Third Opinion has been requested. There is now a third editor involved in this discussion. The statements by both of the original editors are so long that a third opinion would have had to ask the two editors for concise summaries, so concise summaries will still be a good idea. Overly long statements often do not clarify the issues, even if they make the poster feel better. Resume discussion. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: The “third editor” is someone who has been participating in WP:HOUNDING, so a more impartial editor is still requested. However, I do agree that we do need to remain civil and concise. Thank you! WMrapids (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The rules of the Third Opinion noticeboard say that a third opinion request can only be made when there have been two editors in the controversy, not when two editors want to ignore a third editor, or even if the third editor has been engaged in disruptive editing. Your options at this point include DRN or an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the polarity of the situation, I will open an RfC when I have the chance. Peru-related articles have been very contentious lately. WMrapids (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt introduction conflict

[edit]
Withdrawn due to limited participation. WMrapids (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

How should the introduction of the article be presented?

WMrapids (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Peru-related articles have been contentious lately, so in order to establish a consensus, I present another RfC in an effort to avoid further conflict.

The opinion of opposition to the current version is:

  • A new constituent assembly has been unpopular and mentions of it being popular should be removed
  • Avoiding a corruption investigation was one of the main causes of the event
  • Any relationship and rulings between the Constitutional Court and Congress should be removed
  • Removal of information regarding the "denial of confidence"

The opinion of support the current version is:

  • There is a history of support for the constituent assembly and sources expressing support
  • Sources describe the corruption investigations as a "possible" cause (LA Times says "Perhaps Castillo feared that this time there would be enough votes to oust him"), though it is not presented as a clear cause
  • Castillo specifically said that the Constitutional Court had supported Congress to establish a "dictatorship of Congress", making their relationship valid for the article
  • The "denial of confidence" issue is the only way to legally dissolve Congress and this was an open option, warranting inclusion in the article

Lastly, if there are any suggestions to improve the current introduction, it would be greatly appreciated!--WMrapids (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: I trust the judgement of editors better acquianted with the current situation in the country to give a feedback on this, but if I can offer my two cents, the suggestions and proposals should be made from the stable version of the introduction, as the recent changes have been disputed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done The actual last stable version has been applied. WMrapids (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly thank you. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blindlynx:, @Braganza:, @Alcibiades979:, @Elelch:, @Yilku1:, @StellarHalo:, @Amakuru:, @Carlp941:, @CMD:, @C.J Griffin:, @Snarcky1996: : an opinion?--Aréat (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i am fine with both, maybe leaning to option 1 Braganza (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 Mentioning "Attorney General of Peru Patricia Benavides had previously filed before congress a constitutional complaint against Castillo, because of corruption uncovered in his administration" is an essential, sourced part of the event necessary to understand the situation before it happened.--Aréat (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is already included in Option 1; "Attorney General of Peru Patricia Benavides, ... had previously said that Castillo was the head of a criminal organization and called on Congress to remove him from office, with legislators then attempting a third impeachment of Castillo". Also, it should be "alleged corruption" as these are just allegations, so Option 2 has some biased wording issues. WMrapids (talk) 06:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, and it's better explained and sourced in option 2, as well as figuring in the infobox. There's been many edits that were done following the unconsensual title change that were indeed biased, and option 2 does try to balance them. See for example the blatantly false claim of a parliament with a far right majority.--Aréat (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain what is biased. The source explicitly states that a “hard-right congressional majority” exists in Congress, so I’m not sure why you call it “blatantly false”. WMrapids (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 per Aréat's rationale. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

(Presidential recognition debate persists) in Sidebar

[edit]

It is a fact that he is no longer president of Peru. That said what's worse is that this link redirects to the international recognition, which is entirely irrelevant: Venezuela doesn't choose the President of Peru nor does Colombia, Brazil or Mexico. Peru chooses the president of Peru. So even if this must stay it should redirect to a domestic Peruvian interpretation of the events where it can include something like Pedro Castillo's politcal party's opinion but not an international recognition map. 93.56.221.236 (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions and Editorializing

[edit]

The third paragraph in the introduction seems to include an opinion and doesn't use neutral phrasing. The claim that the Constitutional Court exists to serve the Legislature is based on a dubious foundation and is heavily based on claims from the supporters of Castillo Sng2011 (talk) 06:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Multiple sources mention it. JLCop (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Peruvian_self-coup_attempt&oldid=1225699417"