Talk:Second inauguration of Nicolás Maduro

unfocused

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

Ah, yes, that one reference to the economy that's mentioned in relation to the inauguration. How could I. Kingsif (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Well that was just the obvious issue and I wasn't intending anything at you personally, I didn't even know you added it....thank you though.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 04:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Haha, that was sarcasm, nothing taken. If there's any issues, please do bring them up specifically! Kingsif (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The only other thing I tagged was for copy editing because some of the prose seems a little wonky (no offense of course, not because of writing skill but just everything being added quickly, the compounded sources cause that), and I'm a little iffy on the image of the caricature protestor in Miami. It might be interpreted as POV although I did notice the page overall tries to be balanced, which is good. I'm not particularly opposed just pointing it out.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 04:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, please tag it for copy editing, I'm sure if you list it someone will come soon. Better to ask more people about the image, I think it's fine because it's there to demonstrate without comment, others might not like it. Kingsif (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Kingsif, thank you for your kind cooperation . I just have one more question that's a bit funny: Do you think the info box image should crop out the man next to Maduro with the rather glum expression, in case that might be interpreted as an anti-government cherrypick? I can't do it right now anyway but it is a strange photo when you look at his face.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 04:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that's a bodyguard who's supposed to look serious (and he's directly behind Maduro, it would be hard to crop it well). Kingsif (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, wow he looks like more like he's regretting every moment of his life lol. You're right though, just checking.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 04:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like someone came to copy edit this :) --Robotxlabs (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Zerpa

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

Moreno is the President, but Zerpa was the magistrate of elections (see his eswiki page). That makes him the presiding official on overseeing fulfilment of elections, which I assumed included inaugurations. Will try to find sources for this later. Kingsif (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

My understanding was that he was one of the justices in the electoral chamber; the top dog there is Indira Alfonzo. Zerpa's a lot lower down the pecking order (in contrast to the impression given by some of the news coverage of his defection). The stories I've seen say he defected "because he didn't want to be a part of the inauguration", not that he didn't want to conduct it. Anyway. That claim is following in the article by three citations, two of which are firewalled and which I didn't access. Thought it might have been in one of them. Moscow Mule (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Moscow Mule: Having followed the news in the last days, my understanding is the same. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarification there then. Kingsif (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Open cabildo

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

Holy hostile rant, Batman! I'm aware of the open cabildo, I even explained (at ITN) almost exactly what you've written above, before you. But until more news comes out of the NA, we can't say exactly what Guaidó's meeting is. We can let the description stand for itself - a description which has been using modern words, comparing it to a town hall - and wait for news. Kingsif (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cambalachero:@Kingsif: Actually, the cabildo abierto is a figure that still exists in the current Venezuelan constitution (Article 70) and they were also summoned during the 2017 protests. Even if it has both historic or political importance, it is still a perfectly modern term in Venezuela. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: thanks! Do you, perchance, have a copy of the constitution to add that info in the most accurate legal wording? Kingsif (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Sure thing, here's a digital copy in Spanish for the time being. I'll see if there's a translation in English. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Awesome! I'll stick it up on the open cabildo article. Kingsif (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Wikisource seems to translate it as "open forum", which if you ask me I think it is a pretty accurate translation. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Yeah, I knew that the usage correlated with the American concept of the "town hall meeting" (which doesn't need to be in a town hall), didn't know if there were certain legal implications or precedents, though! Kingsif (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Quotes

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

Which are the "anti-Maduro" quotes? --Jamez42 (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

How about the quote "Venezuela is living under a dictatorship" and the litany of quotes in the response section?95.153.48.2 (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

None of them are as lengthy and it seems the quotes are mostly few words. The most biased one could be Macri's. --[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@95.153.48.2: --Jamez42 (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The quotes you have just readded are longer then the many of the ones I added. At least stop pretending you are anything other then a propagandist. Trying to cover your own bias is comparable to someone trying to cover up the Grand Canyon with a single handkerchief.95.153.48.2 (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@95.153.48.2: No need to be uncivil. I should also warn you that by now you probably have broken the three revert rule and remind you that I have repeatedly warned you in your talk page about possible disruptive editing. The blanking of your page and you reverts in other articles ([1][2]) give me the impression you're not editing constructively. Now, could you repeat what are the issues with the quotes? --Jamez42 (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Reread my original comment and try really hard to wrap your tiny mind around the meaning behind it.95.153.48.2 (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@95.153.48.2: Well, there goes nothing. Thank you for letting me study your edit behaviour! I hope you had a Happy New Year :) --Jamez42 (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Jamez42: I think your last revert ("Restoring to last stable version before the proxy and WP:SOCK's edits") was too sweeping. In an article about a presidential inauguration, surely a list of dignitaries (presidents, prime ministers...) in attendance is relevant? (And the fact that three of the presidents were Bolivia's, Cuba's and Nicaragua's is eloquent in itself.) Ditto the quote from the UNSG's spokesman. So, which am I: proxy or sock? Moscow Mule (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

NPOV and Biographies of Living Persons Violations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

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

For the time being I can't answer this properly, point by point, but I only wanted to mention that I'm almost sure that the article is unrelated to BLP, a policy created to protect individuals from libel or defamation. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Redratatoskr: That’s a lot of text, I’m going to try and respond to all of it, based on having written or checked a lot of the article and striving for NPOV myself. We can then talk about if the reasoning something is phrased a certain way is good enough that we both (all when others ideally join discussion) think it won’t be interpreted as biased by most readers (I.e. not those with a strong sentiment either way, those readers we can’t help).

The other percentage of votes (46.07) isn’t mentioned because I’ve never seen a reliable source for it. Of course, that doesn’t mean we can’t say “The government claims there was x, whilst independent analysts say y”.

"It was also announced by the Constituent Assembly, which should not have had the power to do so.[9] The Constituent Assembly is a body created by Maduro as a substitute for the nation's actual legislative body, the National Assembly, since his party was in a minority.[10] Despite the opposition making up a majority of the government, Maduro does not allow them power, and has said that they need to "leave [him] alone to govern".[11]" I don’t think this is biased. 1. the source says that the Constituent Assembly doesn’t have the power to call an election, since they haven’t actually changed the 1999 Constitution yet (so, like, they shouldn’t have any power, legally) 2. Describing the inception of the CA, it’s a factual statement that gives some brief info, perhaps it could be reworded because I agree that being so short can sound accusatory when read. 3. I think your issue with the last sentence is that there’s a quote that paints Maduro badly? He said it, though, in probably a worse context than it’s actually presented in here. It’s also directly related to the section and the context of feuding Assemblies, so to just stick another quote in to even it up wouldn’t make sense.

"The main "illegitimate" contention to the inauguration was primarily based on the unusual election activity. This belief was declared by many countries worldwide. To Maduro being inaugurated, Argentine President Mauricio Macri said in a simple statement that "Venezuela is living under a dictatorship".[12]" Again, this is talking about why people thought the election was illegitimate, which caused the controversy over inauguration, which is the primary focus of the page. It wouldn’t give context to the page if we didn’t say it. For the practice of including all information, though, you’re right it would be ideal to mention that some countries just didn’t care (does anyone publicly announce that they think an election is legitimate? No, they keep quiet or they speak against it. Though there’s probably some responses from Maduro-supporting leaders after others said it was illegitimate)

"Maduro's inauguration took place on 10 January 2019 outside the Supreme Court building in Caracas.[13] Traditionally, it would have happened in front of the Assembly building, an institution he ignores." Your issue here is that the NA says Maduro is ignoring them, and the government view needs to be added... pretty sure Maduro would happily say he ignores them. Sure, they phrase it as ignoring the true legislative body and he phrases it as ignoring whiny children, but neither is specified. However, it could be better phrased. How about “Traditionally, it would have happened in front of the Assembly building; Maduro does not recognise the National Assembly and so it was not”?

I’m going to have to disagree with Jamez, since the article deals with opinions of living people, it is BLP. For multiple sides. I don’t think it’s violating it, because it uses reliable sources to report everything. The “opposition” media is, really, just independent media; most media has biases, but these media have less bias than the state media supporting Maduro. Though, if we use the BBC as neutral standard (as the wiki does), they do give airtime to both supporters and detractors of Maduro without comment (because BBC neutrality) and mention both election percentages - they have published editorials supporting ousting Maduro, but purely based on facts and testimony. From what you’ve quoted, the only thing missing would be denials of allegations - we should, therefore, make it explicitly clear that Maduro says his election wasn’t a sham, as much as that seems obvious. Has he denied anything else? Not much of the content of the page is about him, and BLP doesn’t cover the necessity to present his opinion on Guaidó (doing so might actually be a Guaidó BLP issue).

Also, the National Assembly has a responses section because the article is also largely about this! Most of its purpose is the internal conflict! It’s not a misrepresented reactions section, it’s its own thing. Or, I guess (with emphasis because it’s important): the article is about a controversial event, controversy is, by nature, negative towards the event.

That said, we should strive to make it neutral, though I fear you may still take issue purely because it will always have more negative than not. “A thing happened and people were okay with it” isn’t worthy of an article. This inauguration alone wouldn’t be worthy of an article. It’s the controversy, with the context of the aftermath it has led to, that makes it worthy of an article.

I’d like to see your proposals for adding supportive and more neutral information, to discuss, because of the above issue that you may inadvertently make the article into a vaguely pointless one if not giving due weight to “people didn’t like it so it sparked crisis”.

Awaiting your response! Also inviting @Jamez42: and anyone you can think of who might be interested to join the discussion. Kingsif (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's do our best to organize the points to resolve the NPOV dispute.

1. "Of course, that doesn’t mean we can’t say “The government claims there was x, whilst independent analysts say y”." This solution to the turnout issue is agreeable to me only if we change "independent analysists" to "the opposition" or "opposition analysts/media", especially since every source I've seen for the turnout is pro-opposition, not neutral.
2. In regards to the Constituent Assembly -- the sources used to say that it has no power is efecto cocuyo, the same opposition media which of course is neither third-party nor unbiased. This can be remedied either by including pro-government sources, or by removing all biased sources and including a third-party source, such as this Al Jazeera article:[3] It includes both pro and anti government claims. It also cites the Article used in the constitution to convene the assembly and its legal powers/authority.
3. I suggest we also use the Al Jazeera article for claims surrounding why the CA was called. It includes a quote from Maduro's wife claiming the CA was convened to create peace and unity, while it also includes opposition claims that it was due to wanting to usurpt the NA.
4. My only issue with the last quote isn't the quote itself "leave me alone," it's the phrase "Maduro does not allow them power," which is clearly going to depend on whether you think the CA is legitimate in its authority or not. It's too biased. It should instead say something along the lines of, "Maduro disputes their authortiy/legitimacy." That way, it's both accurate and neutral.
5. We can leave the Macri quote only if you allow me to include a counter-quote or reference to one other world leader such as Evo Morales, Raul Castro, etc. in support of Maduro and the legitimacy of the election.
6. " How about “Traditionally, it would have happened in front of the Assembly building; Maduro does not recognise the National Assembly and so it was not”?" This is perfectly acceptable to me.
7. Finally, I agree with you that BLP counts. It clearly says on the BLP page that any information on any Wiki page about someone who is living must be protected under BLP rules. Although, I strongly disagree with "The “opposition” media is, really, just independent media; most media has biases, but these media have less bias than the state media supporting Maduro." It is not. Opposition media, as government media, is politically partisan or else it wouldn't be opposition media. True independent media, such as the Al Jazeera article I mentioned, references both points of view. Also, I should make it clear -- I myself absolutely do not believe the election was illegitimate.
8. In terms of the Guaidó issue, Maduro and the government certainly have their own view of his call to assume the presidency. I will only accept that the article is neutral if I'm allowed to include counter-claims by Maduro/the government to balance out the National Assembly section. I think that's only fair -- and BLP necessitates living persons' refutations of accusations on pages concerning them in any way, even if the page is not their own page.
9. Finally, I do agree that controversy is what makes the article important, but it doesn't have to be negative -- meaning only catering to the opposition -- in order for it to meet noteriety standards. If anything, adding counter-claims by Maduro would definitely make the article more interesting while also making it more neutral as a whole.
10. I look forward to your response on this matter so that we can implement the changes to make the article neutral and remove the NPOV tag! --Redratatoskr (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I think we can definitely have some agreements:

1. Perhaps "pro-opposition", not just opposition? That's fine with me.
2. Will happily use Al Jazeera as a source. However, sometimes it isn't neutral - I think I used it as one of the sources and it seemed somewhat Maduro-supportive in tone. Generally, though, Al Jazeera is BBC-supported so should be fine. It's at the user's discretion to see if certain correspondents have a bias tone.
3. See 2
4. Hmm, well Maduro doesn't allow them power even though they are elected, which are facts no matter what. "Maduro does not allow them power, because he disputes their authority" perhaps?
5. Another quote should be fine, if it's about legitimacy (presumably a world leader saying "I think it's legitimate"?)
6. Great
7. Fair enough
8. I'll be happy to review a draft of anything you propose to level this, here or on the main page (I trust you won't go too wild, haha)
9. Thanks for the discussion! Kingsif (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed changes

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

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

Will add my voice to say that I often rely on Efecto Cocuyo as the reliable, neutral source of news in Venezuela. Many people just want honesty.

It's comparable to The Guardian in the UK: sure it's run by liberal people, but it is known as neutral and honest even if that's against personal interests sometimes. Kingsif (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

"Critics of Maduro"

I tagged the following text per WP:WEASEL:

While critics of Maduro[who?] had urged him to not remain President, he ignored their pleas, resulting in many[who?] calling the event a "usurpation".[12][15]

The claim that "many" called it a usurpation is not supported by either source. In fact, the only individuals cited as calling the event a usurpation are Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo. Is there any reason this line shouldn't instead say "While the United States urged Maduro not to remain president, he ignored their pleas, resulting in Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo calling the event a "usurpation"? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

With those sources, it should read US; but are there not sources for people within Venezuela? Kingsif (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I've seen a number of sources cite US leaders using it, as well as Guaidó and other members of the opposition, but I'm not sure if there are sources characterizing it as "many". The statement seems a bit odd in general, actually; they're calling it a usurpation just because his critics asked him to resign and he didn't? Surely it's usually about the claims of electoral fraud, etc.? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

"It should not have had the power to do so constitutionally"

@Jamez42: Since you are intent on including this content, could you please provide translations for the relevant section of the source(s)? We should quote them in the article and explain the rationale clearly. The article says The Constituent Assembly announced the election, however it should not have had the power to do so constitutionally. (emphasis mine) This is a big statement to make in Wikipedia's voice, especially since "should" implies a value judgement (in fact, I'm not sure it can be considered WP:NPOV without attribution). — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, I've removed the dead sources again, with clarification that this is mainly because of WP:OVERCITE — we don't need to cite 4 sources for one claim. For now I removed the dead ones again, but feel free to replace with an archive of one of the dead ones if you think they are better suited for the claim in question. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC) On second thought, I've returned them for now, since you updated the links (didn't notice that initially) but I still think we don't need all of them. Perhaps after you summarize which ones contain the relevant information we can decide which to remove. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I notice you have again included the same claim elsewhere in the article: the Election section now makes reference to the lack of the Constituent Assembly's competencies to summon the elections, citing the same sources. Please provide translations for the sections of the source(s) that support this claim so that others can verify if this is an accurate summary of the sources. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: Sure thing.

• Efecto Cocuyo - Foro Penal no avala convocatoria a elecciones presidenciales:

El Foro Penal Venezolano anunció su decisión de no avalar la convocatoria a las elecciones presidenciales del próximo 22 de abril, que hizo el pasado mes de enero la Asamblea Nacional Constituyente (ANC) y organiza el Consejo Nacional Electoral (CNE).

Así lo dio a conocer este viernes 23 de febrero el director de la ONG en defensa de los derechos humanos, Gonzalo Himiob, quien destacó que la posición institucional se basa en que la ANC no tiene facultades constitucionales para convocar comicios porque solo estaría facultada para redactar una nueva Carta Magna.

“La ANC, incluso si hubiese sido válidamente constituida y convocada que no es el caso, no tiene potestades constitucionales ni legales para interferir en la vida política de la nación haciendo llamado a elecciones, en ninguna parte de la Constitución se dice que esta instancia pueda hacer convocatorias de tipo electoral“, explicó Himiob en una rueda de prensa que ofreció el Foro.

Añadió que ante esto no pueden avalar la convocatoria electoral porque es violatoria del derecho a los venezolanos a elegir en condiciones válidas, justas y apegadas a la Constitución venezolana.

Además aseguró que la ANC al llamar a elecciones está cometiendo una "usurpación de funciones", porque a una Constituyente solo le corresponde "cambiar la Constitución, pues así lo dice nuestra Constitución y no el Foro Penal", añadió.

Por ello añadió que el proceso al nacer viciado, "no puede surtir un efecto válido", por lo que se mantendrán atentos para documentar la violación de este derecho político de los venezolanos, durante la organización del proceso, su realización y los posteriores resultados, para llevarlos a las instancias internacionales correspondientes.

The Venezuelan Penal Forum announced its decision not to endorse the summon for presidential elections on April 22, which the National Constituent Assembly (ANC) did last January is organized by the National Electoral Council (CNE).

This was announced on Friday, February 23, by the director of the human rights NGO, Gonzalo Himiob, who stressed that the institutional position is based in that the ANC has no constitutional powers to call elections because it would only be empowered to draft a new Magna Carta.

“The ANC, even if it had been validly constituted and convened that [which] is not the case, does not have constitutional or legal powers to interfere in the political life of the nation by calling for elections, nowhere in the Constitution is it said that this instance can make electoral announcement", Himiob explained in a press conference offered by the Forum.

He added that in sight of this they could not endorse the electoral announcement because it violates the right of Venezuelans to choose under valid, fair conditions according to the Venezuelan Constitution.

He also said that the ANC when calling elections is committing a "usurpation of functions", because a Constituent only has to "change the Constitution, as our Constitution says and not the Penal Forum".

That is why he added that the process started vitiated, "cannot have a valid effect", so they will remain vigilant to document the violation of this political right of Venezuelans, during the organization of the process, its implementation and subsequent results, to take them to the corresponding international instances.

I apologize before hand for the possibly clumsy translation, I used a machine translator and briefly proofread it to save time. This probably is the source that explains the best the issue, since it explains directly that the ANC is not empowered by the constitution to summon elections. It seems like the groups of sources was copied originally from the lead of the 2018 elections, which includes not only the irregularity of the summoning by the Constituent Assembly but also "impeding participation of opposition political parties and the lack of time for standard electoral functions".

Two other of the sources talk only about the fact that the Constituent Assembly summoned the elections CNE obstaculiza inscripción de venezolanos en Registro Electoral, afirman ONG, Adelanto de sufragios acorta plazos de jornadas del RE. The article Observadores electorales detectan 11 irregularidades en el proceso de municipales main topic is about the municipal elections.

The Announcement section of the presidential election article talks a lot better about this in way more detail. These are the sources that seem to further explain why the Constituent Assembly lack said competencies: [4][5][6]. Let me know if you also want to look into them. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Thanks for doing that. The article as translated seems to attribute this view to the Penal Forum and its spokesperson, Gonzalo Himiob; I presume the Constituent Assembly, the TSJ, etc. would disagree on the basis that the Constituent Assembly is considered by the ruling gov't to have assumed legislative powers. Perhaps the solution would be to attribute the statement to Himiob (and others who have made the same point, if they agree?). It would be better if Wikipedia did not take a side directly on this kind of disputed matter. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: Good heavens. I just said that the Penal Forum wasn't the only organization to voice this concern. provide Article 293 of the Venezuelan Constitution for reference in this reply (emphasis added):

El Poder Electoral tiene por funciones:

1. Reglamentar las leyes electorales y resolver las dudas y vacíos que éstas susciten o contengan.
2. Formular su presupuesto, el cual tramitará directamente ante la Asamblea Nacional y administrará autónomamente
3. Dictar directivas vinculantes en materia de financiamiento y publicidad político electorales y aplicar sanciones cuando no sean acatadas.
4. Declarar la nulidad total o parcial de las elecciones.
5. La organización, administración, dirección y vigilancia de todos los actos relativos a la elección de los cargos de representación popular de los poderes públicos, así como de los referendos.
6. Organizar las elecciones de sindicatos, gremios profesionales y organizaciones con fines políticos en los términos que señale la ley. Así mismo, podrán organizar procesos electorales de otras organizaciones de la sociedad civil a solicitud de éstas, o por orden de la Sala Electoral del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia. Las corporaciones, entidades y organizaciones aquí referidas cubrirán los costos de sus procesos eleccionarios.
7. Mantener, organizar, dirigir y supervisar el Registro Civil y Electoral.
8. Organizar la inscripción y registro de las organizaciones con fines políticos y velar porque éstas cumplan las disposiciones sobre su régimen establecidas en la Constitución y en la ley. En especial, decidirá sobre las solicitudes de constitución, renovación y cancelación de organizaciones con fines políticos, la determinación de sus autoridades legítimas y sus denominaciones provisionales, colores y símbolos.
9. Controlar, regular e investigar los fondos de financiamiento de las organizaciones con fines políticos. 10. Las demás que determine la ley. Los órganos del Poder Electoral garantizarán la igualdad, confiabilidad, imparcialidad, transparencia y eficiencia de los procesos electorales, así como la aplicación de la personalización del sufragio y la representación proporcional.

The second source says the following:

La Constitución establece que al Poder Electoral, conformado por el Consejo Nacional Electoral y sus organismos subordinados, le corresponde “la organización, administración, dirección y vigilancia de todos los actos relativos a la elección de los cargos de representación popular de los poderes públicos, así como de los referendos”. Pese a esto, la Asamblea Nacional Constituyente, que es desconocida por no tener “legitimidad de origen“, emitió un decreto que ordenó al CNE organizar las presidenciales en el mes de abril.

Emphasis added again. Efecto Cocuyo does not attribute the fact that the Constitution is violated, although it does say that the process has been criticized by "political parties, electoral focused NGOs, the international community, the civil society and experts in the field" ("(...) el proceso ha sido criticado por partidos políticos, organizaciones no gubernamentales en materia electoral, comunidad internacional, sociedad civil y expertos en esta área (...)")

The third source quotes the Electoral Citizen Network, which "described the order of the Constituent Assembly to summon presidential elections before 30 April 2018 as 'irregular', declaring that it is a violation of the constitution and civil rights".

Furthermore, Prodavinci has an analysis too citing the legal reasons on why the call was unconstitutional.

As you can see, quoting only Gonzalo Himiob on the issue would not be accurate. --Jamez42 (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: It is dubious to say that Efecto Cocuyo does not attribute the fact that the Constitution is violated; they are clearly talking about what Himiob said. At best, it's ambiguous. It looks like other than Prodavinci, the sources attribute the claim to various organizations rather than reporting it as a fact. The Prodavinci article appears to be an analysis piece, and per WP:NEWSORG, Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

As you'll see if you reread my comment, I did not say that the statement should be solely attributed to Himiob. I said Perhaps the solution would be to attribute the statement to Himiob (and others who have made the same point, if they agree?) (emphasis added). Given the other sources you've just brought forward who do agree, I think attributing it to political parties, electoral focused NGOs ..., along the same lines as what Efecto Cocuyo does, may be appropriate here. As I said in my last reply, it's important to consider that the opposition's perspective is not the only perspective and we should avoid taking either as fact; in-text attribution is a good way of avoiding that. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: "Clearly talking about what Himiob said"? I'm sorry, but I'll need a quote on that, specially since I just provided another group of sources and organizations that state the same argument for the same reason. Repeating what I have cited previously, Efecto Cocuyo only wrote that the process has been criticized by "political parties, electoral focused NGOs, the international community, the civil society and experts in the field, but is stating as a fact that only the Electoral Branch is empowered to summon elections. Prodavinci also quotes another interesting fact, and that is that according to Article 298 of the Constitution, the electoral rules cannot be modified at least six months before the electoral process takes place. On top of that we're not even mentioning the fact that the election of the Constituent Assenbly itself has been quite controversial, which as been quoted by these sources as another reason of why the elections should not have been announced by the body.

I'm sorry that I didn't read that you suggested including other attributions, which I admit could be useful. However, I'll recall what I mentioned in another talk page, and I'll ask if the government (namely the Constituent Assembly, the TSJ, etc) has contested these arguments. If they have, have they provided a rationale for this? Since I have provided reliable sources for the content, they should be challenged with more. Otherwise we would just be arguing that the announcement was justified because the government wanted to do it. Until then, I propose a change in the text along the lines of: The Constituent Assembly announced the election. Article 293 of the Venezuelan constitution only allows the Electoral Branch to summon elections, so the Constituent Assembly was not empowered to do so constitutionally.. Would you agree on this? --Jamez42 (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Here's the quote, from the article that we were talking about: This was announced on Friday, February 23, by the director of the human rights NGO, Gonzalo Himiob, who stressed that the institutional position is based in that the ANC has no constitutional powers to call elections because it would only be empowered to draft a new Magna Carta. The bolded section is where the author says the ANC has no powers to call an election, and they appear to be summarizing Himiob's rationale. Unless you are referring to a part of the article that you didn't translate, in which case I'm not sure why you are getting so up in arms about it. If you were talking about a separate instance, please quote and translate it.

You haven't addressed my main point, which I will repeat here:

It looks like other than Prodavinci, the sources attribute the claim to various organizations rather than reporting it as a fact. The Prodavinci article appears to be an analysis piece, and per WP:NEWSORG, Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

As far as I can tell, your reliable sources are either summarizing the views of others, or are analysis pieces, all of which should be given proper attribution. Unless you have reliable sources which do present it as a fact, I can't agree to take sides using Wikipedia's voice. As far as I'll ask if the government (namely the Constituent Assembly, the TSJ, etc) has contested these arguments. If they have, have they provided a rationale for this? I really hope you aren't suggesting that we can't know whether the government thinks the ANC is legitimate because they haven't replied to a Prodavinci blog post. Their position is clear through their statements and actions. In any case, here is an example of their position: [7] Note that while Telesur was deprecated as a source for facts, Telesur may be a primary source for the viewpoint of the Venezuelan government. They say: The National Constituent Assembly (ANC) is the only super body authorized by the Venezuelan Constitution. It is plenipotentiary and all public powers must comply with its decisions. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: We're talking about different Efecto Cocuyo articles:

• Foro Penal no avala convocatoria a elecciones presidenciales (Talks about Foro Penal's position, including Himiob's statements)
• Las 10 irregularidades de los comicios del #20Mayo (Counts ten different irregularities during the elections)

I provided the text in Spanish, but here's a rough translation in English:

The Constitution establishes that the Electoral Branch, conformed by the National Electoral Council and its subordinate bodies, is entitled “the organization, administration, direction and supervision of all acts related to the election of the positions of popular representation of the public powers, as well as of the referendums ”. Despite this, the National Constituent Assembly, which is unknown for not having "origin legitimacy," issued a decree that ordered the CNE to organize the presidential elections in April.

Emphasis added. I don't mind translating texts at all, but please bear in mind that you can use machine translations to have an idea of the meaning.

I haven't addressed your point regarding Prodavinci because I never claimed an editorial voice should be used or that there shouldn't be attribution. You still might want to take a look at WP:VENRS. Last but not least, of course I'm not expecting a government reply to a single blog post, but at very least to the declarations of the Penal Forum, the Electoral Citizen Network and José Ignacio Hernández. Telesur's article is a good start, but my point is that the answer should not only be the "what" (The National Constituent Assembly is plenipotentiary and all public powers must comply with its decisions), but the "why". --Jamez42 (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: If we're in agreement that attribution should be used, then let's do that. What about:

The Constituent Assembly announced the election; several NGOs, analysts and opposition politicians have argued that it did not have the power to do so constitutionally.

If there is a concern about WP:WEASEL then Hernández, the Electoral Citizen Network and/or the Penal Forum can be included as examples as well. That the government disagrees that it is unconstitutional can probably be inferred by the reader, but the Telesur article or similar can be included if we want to make that explicit. Let me know what you think. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: My concern is that like I mentioned, the Efecto Cocuyo article states this as a fact in an editorial voice, besides the NGOs. My point is that the fact should be challenged with another reliable source that expresses a contrary statement, preferably explaining the why, or at least one reliable to express the government's position. The Telesur source provided, besides being deprecated like you mentioned, is an opinion article by Misión Verdad. It's the reason why I'm proposing to place the Articles' rationale explaining the position: because in the article this fact has not been countered. --Jamez42 (talk) 09:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: As I said, TeleSUR being deprecated does not mean that it cannot be used as a primary source for the viewpoint of the Venezuelan government, or its allies, such as Misión Verdad. WP:RSP says As a state-owned media network in a country with low press freedom, Telesur may be a primary source for the viewpoint of the Venezuelan government, although due weight should be considered. There are also several reliable sources that initially reported on the ANC's assumption of legislative powers, such as NYT, which could also be added for context. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: Like I said earlier, my concern is not onlythat TeleSUR is deprecated (I explicitly said "besides being deprecated"), but also that it is an opinion article, so even as a reference to the government's position may be problematic. In any case, it would serve as the position of pro-government outlets. Given this, I would recommend the direct quote of government officials. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Popping in, not to do much with such a long discussion, but to say that WP:VENRS does mention that primary source thing about TeleSur. Try to balance it with better sources, though. Kingsif (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Do you have a direct quote from a government official to propose for inclusion? If not, I don't see the issue with using the Misión Verdad piece, while stating explicitly that it is an article published in government-funded TeleSUR from a government-aligned organization/think tank. Or, as I suggested above, we don't need to provide the government's position explicitly at all, and could just say The Constituent Assembly announced the election; several NGOs, analysts and opposition politicians have argued that it did not have the power to do so constitutionally. There are a number of workable options here. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: The burden rests in you to provide such quotes. The issue at hand is precisely that this affirmation has not been contested, and like I have mentioned before, it has been made not only by NGOs and analysts, but also in an editorial voice. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: I already provided you with a source summarizing the pro-government view. Here is what I said: I don't see the issue with using the Misión Verdad piece, while stating explicitly that it is an article published in government-funded TeleSUR from a government-aligned organization/think tank. The article in question contests the view you are talking about, and as we have established, TeleSUR can be used as a primary source for the views of the Venezuelan government. Yet you continue to say things like this affirmation has not been contested, despite me providing direct evidence to the contrary. I am having a hard time seeing this as anything other than WP:STONEWALLING. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: I should mention also that the "editorial voice" you keep referring to is from an analysis piece summarizing 10 irregularities that have been noted by "political parties, civil society and experts in this area", not a piece of reporting. WP:NEWSORG has the following to say about such analysis pieces: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: So now Efecto Cocuyo is an analysis piece? Why didn't you mention it before? Unlike Prodavinci, the article describes events, sometimes quoting NGOs, but it doesn't go into an in depth analysis about the legality of the irregularities. Nowhere in the article it is started that it is an analysis or opinion piece.

I already provided you with a source summarizing the pro-government view. Does that mean a government official statement won't be provided? At least a spokesperson or someone from the administration? WP:STONEWALLING says Status quo stonewalling is typified by an insistence on keeping a current version instead of adopting a proposed change, or reverting to the version prior to a disputed change (the status quo), and avoiding substantive discussion of the issues related to the change while engaging in behavior that is typical of disputes. I invite you to point out which of the tactics listed in the article I am applying, because so far I have done my best to explain the issues that I see with the removal, going to great lengths at providing and translating sources. When you have asked me to back my arguments with references I have tried to provide them, so I would only ask the same.

Please be mindful of accusing me of stonewalling or other disruptive editing in the future, since it only makes the discussions harder. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

So now Efecto Cocuyo is an analysis piece? Why didn't you mention it before? I didn't look carefully at the article when you first quoted from it, but it's clearly an explainer summarizing NGOs' and others' complaints rather than a piece of reporting. Before the list, they say something like "Political parties, NGOs, and others have noted 10 irregularities; here they are", implying that the list is a summary of these groups' POVs.

Does that mean a government official statement won't be provided? At least a spokesperson or someone from the administration? I'm not aware of an official statement from the government. Are you? Can you explain why you think it would be necessary when we already have a source for the government's position from their media mouthpiece, TeleSUR?

You are making unreasonable sourcing demands by insisting on a hyperspecific type of source (an official government statement) when we already have one that will do. The type and quality of reliable sources required to support a statement depend on the nature of the statement and on whether it is contentious. It is not contentious that the government views the ANC as a pluripotential body with legislative powers, and that they believe that this is legal. In fact, it's obvious enough that I don't even think this needs to be explicitly mentioned in the article: as I said, we don't need to provide the government's position explicitly at all. But since you insisted on doing so, I provided you a source, which you are now saying is not good enough (moving the goalposts).

I really don't understand what you're objecting to here. I am not proposing to take the government's side, I am proposing to represent that there is a dispute rather than taking the opposition's side as fact, in line with our policy of WP:IMPARTIAL. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

MUD boycotting the election

@Jamez42: First, you said that they were not boycotting the election (they were, as is clear from the source). Now you say that it is WP:COATRACK to mention it. How can it possibly be WP:COATRACK when (a) the cited article also includes the exact same fact in the same sentence as the vote count and (b) the MUD's boycotting of the vote has a direct relationship with a lower eventual turnout? Not only that, but they have a clear incentive to report a lower count, because it would suggest both that their boycott was more successful and that the government was inflating the count. This is no doubt why the Independent found it noteworthy to mention; we should follow their lead and include it. Finding facts disagreeable does not justify removing them. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: I stand by my first statement: Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion because different sources will usually state different facts. The problem that I'm starting to see is that we're bringing and asking details of the election that are already explain in its main article and its talk page, which I strongly encourage you to read: months before the election took place there were already lengthy discussions about the poll's irregularities.

Before the Democratic Unity Roundtable decided to disavow the elections, the Supreme Tribunal of Justice blocked the revalidation of their card in late January 2018, which I should mention, was the most voted in the electoral history of Venezuela. ([8][9]). You have answered the question yourself: stating only that they disavowed the elections gives the impression that their estimate might be biased, while stating that they would not have been able to run in the first place is just as important, and simply sasying that they are the opposition coalition would serve the same purpose.

It's not the first time that you quote WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and yet most of the times, if not all, I do my best to cite policies or guidelines, as well as explain my edits. I ask you to listen to my arguments before citing it the next time. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: I have listened to your arguments—as should be obvious, since I have directly refuted them. I cited WP:IDONTLIKEIT because your rationale for removing the content keeps changing, leading me to suspect that what is actually important to you is the removal of the content, and not Wikipedia policy. First, you disputed the fact that MUD boycotted the elections, which I refuted. Then, without addressing my refutation of your original point, you pivoted to claiming that the fact was not relevant based on WP:COATRACK—I have argued that it is, which you have again not addressed. Now I'm not even sure what your argument is, other than accusing me of not understanding the situation. Citing policies, like WP:COATRACK, that are obviously not applicable is not helpful and I am having a hard time assuming good faith when you continue to avoid addressing my actual argument (which combined with your repeated reverts could be considered status quo stonewalling).

Please address the following points which I have made justifying the inclusion of the material: (a) the MUD boycotted the election, as stated in reliable sources such as the Independent; and (b) the two pieces of information are clearly related as they were explicitly connected by the reliable source we are citing, so WP:COATRACK doesn't apply. Taken together, (a) and (b) make a strong argument for including the information: it is not only verifiable but also relevant.

As for stating that they would not have been able to run in the first place is just as important: the article already states that some opposition candidates were disqualified and I am not suggesting that that be removed. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

"At least six of the main opposition candidates were disqualified from running"

@Jamez42: Please translate the part of this source that you think justifies the use of the phrase "at least". As far as I can tell, the article only mentions six and does not say that there were more. Your argument in your edit summary that the source dates to January 2018, so until May more candidates could have been disqualified. Opposition political parties were banned from participating, which implicitly means other candidates did not have the possibility to run is original research. Our job is to summarize sources, not predict what may have happened in the time since a source was published. You may also want to have a look at WP:CRYSTAL. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Here is a potential solution which does not mention a number: Several of the main opposition candidates, such as Henrique Capriles and Leopoldo López, were disqualified from running. This makes it clear that there could be more and that Capriles and López are sourced examples, without using the raw count or speculating that there were more than six. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: As far as I know WP:CRYSTAL does not talk about events from the past (specifically in 2018). That being said, I like the proposal because it also solve the WP:WEASEL issue that was the reason to change the wording in the first place. I have changed the wording accordingly. --Jamez42 (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Thanks for implementing the proposal. As I understand it, the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL has to do with speculation (Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate), which is what the source dates to January 2018, so until May more candidates could have been disqualified is. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional NPOV issues

Here are some other NPOV issues for discussion. (non-exhaustive) Feel free to break up this comment if you want to reply to an individual point, I don't mind.

• The change in venue represents another instance of lack of adherence to Venezuela's constitution in regards to the election; while it instructs that inaugurations must be conducted by the National Assembly, Maduro's was instead officiated by the Supreme Court. — similar to the previous discussion, I think this wording is not neutral enough. Rather than "another instance of lack of adherence to Venezuela's constitution" and so on, I think it can be combined with the previous sentence, for something like:

Maduro's inauguration took place on 10 January 2019 outside the Supreme Court building in Caracas.[13] While the constitution specifies that inaugurations should be conducted by the National Assembly, at the Assembly building, Maduro views the National Assembly as illegitimate, so his inauguration was officiated by the Supreme Court.

• At the start of the inauguration, Maikel Moreno went blank and stuttered, having forgotten what to say, before looking to the side and continuing. — I'm not convinced that this is WP:DUE; was this mentioned by any other sources? Even if due, I think it "went blank and stuttered, having forgotten what to say, before looking to the side" is excessive. Something like "Maikel Moreno appeared to initially forget his lines" or something else more concise would be sufficient, assuming it's warranted at all.
• The contention around the legitimacy of the inauguration was primarily based on the unusual activity of the election, including the lack of the Constituent Assembly's competencies to summon the elections, impeding participation of opposition political parties, and the lack of time for standard electoral functions, — I think this should be attributed, in line with the discussion above about the constitutionality of the ANC's calling of the election.
• It has also been reported that some people present at the inauguration were forced to appear, including all those who work for the government; — the source cited does not support the claim that "all those who work for the government" were forced to appear; there is a statement from one woman who says that she was forced, but that seems to be it. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll try to find time to respond to this. Pinging user that started the article @Kingsif:. --Jamez42 (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

In the meantime I can respond some of the issues tangentially:

• Is the proposal based in any current reference in the article? There's no doubt that Maduro sees the National Assembly as illegitimate, but to prevent WP:SYNTH and WP:OR we should reference this.
• More sources: [10][11][12][13] I would appreciate help finding English sources, though.
• I have included NGOs in the paragraph based once again on the lead of the main article of the elections. --Jamez42 (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• • Hi - I can also look at some of this when I have a little more time. Perhaps a lot comes from the sources where they are talking about the inauguration in terms of what was strange about it, which has been reflected in the text? Kingsif (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: It looks like Cabello specifically explained the government's rationale. This is a quote from Sputnik:

Venezuelan incumbent President Nicolas Maduro will be sworn in for the second six-year term on January 10 before the country's Supreme Court and not before the National Assembly, which is controlled by the opposition, Diosdado Cabello, the president of Venezuela's National Constituent Assembly, said. "They [the National Assembly] have lost their legitimacy after disrespecting the constitution and other branches of power," Cabello said as quoted by the Nacional news portal.

Obviously it would be preferable to quote "the Nacional news portal" rather than Sputnik, which is not considered reliable for factual claims as far as I know. Do you know what they could be referring to there, or where this original article could be found? Failing that, there are also some TeleSUR articles that say Maduro was sworn in before the court because the assembly is "in contempt" which could be used instead (obviously with attribution as a primary source for gov't opinion, as "government-controlled news agency TeleSUR" or similar) — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

This El Nacional article quotes Cabello repeating that the Assembly is "in contempt", but doesn't explain why. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Thanks for that. I don't think we need to get into details about why (he seems to be referring to the TSJ's ruling regarding the 3 members who were sworn in despite being barred from doing so, so we could explain it using e.g. this source, but maybe that's too WP:SYNTHY), so it's probably sufficient to say the following: Maduro's inauguration took place on 10 January 2019 outside the Supreme Court building in Caracas.[13] While the constitution specifies that inaugurations should be conducted by the National Assembly, at the Assembly building, the Maduro administration views the National Assembly as being "in contempt", so his inauguration was officiated by the Supreme Court instead.[EN source here] Let me know if that works for you and I can implement it. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: Let's see if the text can be written without any connotation of any kind: Maduro's inauguration took place on 10 January 2019 outside the Supreme Court building in Caracas.[13] The Venezuelan constitution specifies that inaugurations should be conducted by the National Assembly, at the Federal Legislative Palace. The Maduro administration views the National Assembly as being "in contempt", so his inauguration was officiated by the Supreme Court instead.[EN]] Does that sound alright? --Jamez42 (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: I don't see how that differs substantively from the version I proposed, but it's fine by me in any case. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: Thanks. I've added the text to the article. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)