Talk:Pedro Carmona

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

POV

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

There are some obvious phrasing errors here which are anti-U.S, anti-Carmona and pro-Chavez.

Agreed. Made an edit that should be more NPOV. Adding more biographical information (like that provided in the BBC Mundo article) would round this out some. Deadsalmon 20:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't detect any anti-US or pro-Chavez POV in the current article, maybe someone changed it. I really see some of the opposite. The dissolving of the Venezuelan General Assembly was obviously unconstitutional. You think the Venezuelan Constitution has a provision for someone to walk in and seize power, fire everybody, and dissolve the congress? That's absurd. Also, the statement that the U.S. was slow to condemn the coup sort of understates the fact that the U.S. never did condemn the coup. I reviewed and searched for news articles that said so, found nothing. I surely don't remember any condemnation. I'm going to fix the article. If someone can cite a reference for any U.S. condemnation of the coup, I welcome the correction to my edit. DanielM 20:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

You make some good points, but I think it still doesn't reflect NPOV. You're correct in that there wasn't a provision in the Venz. constitution (both before and after revisions made by Chavez, to my knowledge) allowing the dissolution of Congress and other changes made by Carmona. However, the anti-Chavez camp would contend that Chavez's changes to the constitution were illegal in and of itself, and Carmona's actions were simply in the interest of undoing those changes. To look at it in another light, imagine the same situation in relation to the United States' revolution against British rule — nobody would contend that the creation of a new country was illegal in the eyes of the British government, but Americans would have a very different story on the "criminality" of the new constitution. Not a perfect parallel, of course, but you get my point. In any case, the wording needs to reflect a neutral point of view, so the interpretation of Carmona's actions by both sides should be included. By the way, the U.S. did not condemn the coup, per se, but rather the use of violence on the part of both parties. I don't think the wording has reflected that very well, both currently and prior to DanielM's revisions. Take a look at the official response; something mentioning the ambivalent response without such a condemnatory tone seems more appropriate. Deadsalmon 01:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

@DeadSalmon, well the article in its current form doesn't say anything about the constitutionality of Carmona's actions so I don't think this is an issue. I think the tone of the sentence mentioning allegations that the U.S. supported the coup is okay and is factual, not condemnatory. I don't think an "interpretation of Carmona's actions by both sides" needs to be included in this article, but if it were it should probably have its own section. DanielM 09:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think removing the allegation of violating the constitution did the trick. You're right in saying that an interpretation belongs on another page (which already exists); as it is, the article seems fine to me. I'm removing the NPOV tag unless anyone objects. Deadsalmon 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Responsibility of Carmona in HR violations

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

As President, Carmona was the Commander of the Armed Force and therefore responsible for military actions during his regime. I Propose to restore this paragraph:

During the short-lived government of Pedro Carmona, military officers held President Chavez for 36 hours against his will and attempted to force his exile. Additionally, security forces conducted raids without warrants and took some Chavez supporters into custody illegally, including National Assembly deputy Tarek William Saab, a member of the Chavez-aligned MVR.[1]

That's a very interesting argument, since you cleansed all criticism from Hugo Chavez, claiming he (Chavez) wasn't responsible. Do you have some reliable source which directly implicates Carmona? Chavez is undeniably in charge: Carmona was dubiously in charge during a power vacuum. How can you argue this one way with Carmona, and the other with Chavez? Sandy 20:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

But Carmona made a decree stating that he was the president and the decree "Upheld all other laws both internal and international, as long as they do not disagree with the present Act". Therefore he was the Commander of the Armed Force...--JRSP 21:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

sure. Anyway, do you have a reliable source or not? Sandy 21:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Let us say that the source provided is not pro-Chávez --JRSP 02:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Establish relevance to Carmona

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Please establish some relevance of this statement to Carmona. The military officers are the ones who accepted Chavez's resignation *before* Carmona was sworn-in. What does the military holding Chavez have to do with Carmona?

During the short-lived government of Pedro Carmona, military officers held President Chavez for 36 hours against his will and attempted to force his exile. Additionally, security forces conducted raids without warrants and took some Chavez supporters into custody illegally, including National Assembly deputy Tarek William Saab, a member of the Chavez-aligned MVR.[2]

Sandy 02:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I only report what the source says. If you have any questions, ask the source, not me JRSP 02:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Nice response. You add content with no context, and then wait for others to do the work? Sandy 03:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Carmona is far from have being been a president

Latest comment: 19 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Carmona was never a president, because chavez never resigned his office. I think this article should be revised and corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.155.7 (talk)

Absolutely right, well spotted, I have fixed it, SqueakBox 00:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

You're going to need to make a much stronger case to introduce that kind of POV. For example, some reliable sources, rather than original research. Perez Jimenez wasn't "president" either; he was a dictator. Sandy 00:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Really, that is not POV, in the usual sense anyhow, it is a question of the meaning of President and who should be included in the line of Presidents for an historical record. Carmona was installed for two or three days and made some decrees and tried to fire the Congress and so on, but all of that never much had any effect as far as I know because of the short time until Chavez returned to power and then it was null and void in totality. It seems odd to me to include Carmona in the line of Presidents and I think Chavez' tenure should be shown in an unbroken way since the time he was elected, really I think he was still President for those two or three days they confined him. However I would like to hear from a Venzuelan editor on this, have we got any? Leave it to the Venezuelans to tell us if Carmona was really President or not. DanielM 10:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Over 60% of venezuela voted for chavez, i think that is a clear stamp for chavez to uphold his presidency. IF you dont know what happend during those few days when chavez was captured and the us landed a helicopter to kidnap him out of venezuela, i suggest you watch the following movie, and see the truth with your own eyes. Chavez never resigned. I think what happend those days was a disgrace to democracy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.155.7 (talk)

I dont think this is a question of democracy but whether he was President, and certainly IMO he never was and for wikipedia to claim he was grossly violates NPOV as it is politicking, claiming something that never was, SqueakBox 17:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Carmona disbanded the entire democraticly functioning institutions directly after he was "inaugurated". I find that a disgrace to democracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.155.7 (talk)

Anon, please sign your talk page entries with four tildes ( ~~~~ ), and please use edit summaries on your article edits. Sandy 00:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think that in the long run Carmona's presidency will be seen like a distant blip only relevant because of the the way it came into being and how it ended. For all practical purposes he was not president because there were no real consequences to his actions as president. However, for a few days (less than 48 hours) most Venezuelans (and also most outside Venezuela) believed that he had in fact become the new head of state. If perception is reality, then he was president. Of course all this was reversed when Chavez was brought back less than 2 days since he ___________ (fill whatever you like: 'resigned' or 'was illegally deposed'). The only reason we discuss this was because of the short time Carmona lasted as president. Had Chavez been away for, say, 5 weeks before being brought back, and had during that time Carmona remained in charge we wouldn't be discussing if he was or if he wasn't. But problem is that 1, 2, or 3 days looks like an extremely short and silly time for one to be listed as president. Anagnorisis 00:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Anagnorisis, I know you were involved in some of Saravask's original work. We're trying to figure out the whole mess, so we can fix it in all the templates and tables. Do you know on what basis Octavio Lepage was left out of the List of Presidents of Venezuela, while Carmona was included? That seems to be a contradiction, and it's not really explained in the sources or footnotes. Sandy 01:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

We discussed the issue here [3]JRSP 01:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you are thinking of him a president-in-charge (while he was minister of the interior) every time the president travelled abroad, then I do not think he should be in the list. Everytime the president went abroad, the minister of the interior would formally become president-in-charge during the time the president was actually away from Venezuela. This was kind of keeping the job for the president while he was away. This situation reverted automatically the moment the president returned to Venezuelan soil. This happened with all presidents. If Lepage was to be included (which I don't think he should) then many others should be included. However, if you think of him as president during the period he took over as a result of Perez being impeached, then I think he should be included. On that ocassion the minister of the interior did not take over (he could not), as the separation from the post was for a very different reason (minister wouldn't be keeping the post waiting for the president to come back) and of a very different nature. In this case the constitution (this was the old one, the one from 1961) made it so that the president of the congress would become interim president. However, most members of congres didn't want Lepage as president and thus after a couple of months elected Velasquez to become interim president. In this case I think Lepage could be in the list. Otherise, who would be listed as president of Venezuela between may and july 1993? Anagnorisis 01:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The old discussion pointed out by JRSP shows how Wiki has evolved. Referencing requirements have gotten much tighter on Wiki, and the decisions taken there look rather informal, in retrospect (in other words, what we might call original research today, if the statements aren't referenced). The References at the bottom of List of Presidents of Venezuela include one source that shows 40 presidents, one that shows 45, and one that shows 53 (all different ways of counting them). It seems that Saravask's chart converted all of that information to 53 distinct presidential terms, vs. 40 or 45 distinct Presidents, and also showed the "interim" uncounted "caretaker" presidents, yet leaving out Lepage. More info is better than less IMO, but whatever we do, we need to make our sources more clear, via better inline citations. Anagnorisis, I'm not sure what your bottom line is? Guess it's complex ... Sandy 01:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

My bottom line is one of selecting a criteria and keeping to it. If we put all presidents, including interim ones, then Lepage should be in for the time he assumed constitutionally (like Velasquez did) following Perez impeachment. If Velasquez is, Lepage should be. If Velasquez is not, then Lepage should not be. Anagnorisis 17:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

References, original research, and POV

Latest comment: 19 years ago55 comments7 people in discussion

Wiki reports according to reliable sources. The idea that Carmona wasn't President of Venezuela — regardless of circumstances — is original research and POV. Multiple reliable sources report that Carmona was interim president. Please do not delete referenced content; inserting original research and POV is against Wiki polices of WP:V and WP:NPOV, and can be considered vandalism. Sandy 21:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

the original research is to claim he was President, your claims are ridiculous, SqueakBox 21:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Reliable sources say he was President; Please refrain from deleting referenced content, as this can be considered vandalism. Sandy 22:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Not when there is a genuine editorial dispute it isnt vandalism, as I am sure you know well. Making false vandalsim claims or threatening to is not the sign of a serious editor so if you want to negotiate seriously please dont talk rubbish or muddle a seriousd POV dispute with vandalism (policy is very clear on this and you are POV pushing by trying to distort policy), SqueakBox 00:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

What is clear is that some people will see Carmona as having been President and others definitely see him as having not been President (depending on whether one is sympathetic to Chavez or not). POV demands we give both sides of the story, and it equally demands that we dont present one side of the story (the anti Chavez side) as the only truth, that is POV pushing of thw worst kind, SqueakBox 00:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Anyway where are your references re Carmona as President. Do we have any from the Venezuelan Government? If not we should do or it could be argued as a term used by the critics and enemies of Venezuela and not the country itself. See this for instance, SqueakBox 00:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The references are where they are supposed to be: in the article, where you keep reverting them. They are also on the List of Presidents of Venezuela, where the distinctions about the nature of Carmona's interim presidency are made clear. Wiki reports according to reliable sources, not according to original research or how you want the world to be. According to all reputable news media sources, Pedro Carmona was President, regardless of the circumstances. We don't rewrite history on Wiki; we report it. You have repeatedly deleted referenced sources, and inserted original research with no references. Please stop, or it can be considered vandalism. Of course the NA didn't recognize Carmona: he fired them. Sandy 01:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Clearly, Carmona was not a de jure president. Now, to claim he was a de facto president we must show he was able to control the country but IMO he could not. There has been similar cases, for instance, Lady Jane Grey was Queen of England or not? JRSP 01:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Neither de jure or de facto are the issue: in fact, wasn't it you, JRSP, who inserted one of those words (I don't recall)? He was an interim president. De jure, de facto, you all can argue that all day, but he was a president. I don't really care what adjectives you add, though. Do you want to use de factor, de jure, or what? I was pretty sure those were your insertions, where all I put was interim. SqueakBox is trying to delete that he was a president at all, even though the circumstances are explained in the List of Presidents, and every reliable source says he was President, like it or not. Sandy 01:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. Sandy, please stop confusing a genuine POV conflict with vandalism, which is always in bad faith and is clearly not the case here. If you want to be taken seriously you must stop assuming terrible faith on my part and the part of the anon who also disagrees with you. Clearly we are not alone and your stance seems very POV by the mere fact that you are shouting vandalism at the first sign of opposition in what is clearly anything but a clear cut case, SqueakBox 01:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC) SqueakBox 01:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, it is not a POV conflict: you are deleting referenced content, and inserting original research and POV. That is a violation of policy. If you want to be taken seriously, you should have addressed the concerns on the talk page, and read the references, before deleting referenced content and inserting original research. I am not shouting vandalism at the first sign of something: you reverted referenced content and inserted origiinal research several times, without a reasonable talk page discussion. It is not good faith for you to start changing long-standing templates on Wiki with no prior discussion, as you are deleting Carmona as president in 3 different places. Sandy 01:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's far from clear that "every reliable source says he was President," Sandy. In the references this interviewer Ray Suarez at PBS says "will take over as transitional President." The BBC does say in one of the references that he was "installed by military officers as Venezuela's interim President." Aha, and the US State Department website of all sources says Carmona "proclaimed himself as interim president." Do any of these convey sufficient legitimacy for the historical record? I don't think so. Your accusations of vandalism and lack of good faith are spurious, there is a reasonable debate occurring over this content.

Thinking about it, whether or not he was President depends on whether other governments recognized him and his government. I would give particular weight to whether Venezuela's neighbors recognized him. And then consideration to other countries, and also if other organizations like the UN and OAS recognized him. DanielM 11:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think that labeling editors as "vandals", "disruptive",etc sounds as a "shoot the messanger" trick to diminish those with alternate points of view (see [4],[5],[6]) JRSP 12:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Here, a link to a list of Venezuelan Presidents through 2004 that does not include Carmona: http://www.luz-aldia.com.ve/biblioteca-virtual/public_html/presidentes_venezuela.htm. DanielM 18:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

It appears that that website cannot count. I counted 50 presidents there, but {{VEpresidents}} counts 61. So... either Wikipedia is stating that there are eleven "presidents of VE" when there wasn't, or that site is censoring facts and not telling the true story. That is not reliable. And it even isn't in English. Iolakana|^T 11:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well Kilo-Lima definitely reverted me due to his persoanl pursuit of me [7] due to some some obscure dislike of me not because of his knowledge of Venezuelan politics (I know this sort of thing shouldn't be happening on wikipedia but it does) so it seems to me there is no consensus that Carmona was president and this incorrect anomaly should be removed, SqueakBox 18:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually Kil-Lima was directed here by Sandy who prefers to use trickery when he sees the debate is not going in his direction, SqueakBox 18:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The list provided by DanielM seems to be a pre-1999 constitution list considering the 1999-2004 term. However, I think DanielM has a point when he states the importance of recognition by other states, UN and OAS. As far as I know none of them recognized Carmona as president JRSP 18:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps that is true that it is pre-1999, but it could also be a 2004 list, which I took it to be. DanielM 19:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Daniel, self-published websites are not reliable sources. If you all provide here some reliable sources which discuss the POV that Carmona was not President, I will incorporate that info into the text. Wikipedia reports based on WP:V and WP:RS, and avoids original research. We can discuss the alternate points of view, within the allowance for due weight. What we can't due is ignore the mainstream media (reliably-sourced) accounts that he was, albeit briefly, President. Unless you have reliable sources upon which we can base alternate text, there is no reason for a POV tag on this article. SqueakBox, please refrain from personal comments and personal attacks: your version was a violation of WP:BLP, and did not conform to WP:V or WP:NPOV. If you will provide reliable sources which present an alternate view, it can be incorporated into the text, but individual editors can't rewrite history as told by reliable sources. JRSP, if you have reliable sources for the info you want to include, I'll be glad to write the text presenting the alternate view. Sandy 18:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps the opinion of the National Assembly of Venezuela could help us in this issue [8] JRSP 19:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sandy, that's not a self-published website that I can see. It's a "virtual library" at an education-related website of some kind. And please, if you are going to quote rules, don't overlook WP:SELF (avoid self-references) which you evidently weren't aware of when you told us the Wikipedia list of Venezuelan Presidents supported the claim here that Carmona was President. DanielM 19:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

So Wikipedia is lying? Iolakana|^T 11:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

So we now have one source (the BBC) who claim he was President and 2 sources that claim he wasnt. As far as I am aware no government including the US goivernemnt recognised this criminlal when he claimed to be President illegally for 36 hours. For weikipedia to then single handedly claim he was an official President is nothing more than rewriting history, SqueakBox 19:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

A virtual libary is not a reliable source. The BBC is by no means the only source which says Carmona was president: it is merely easy to locate. Daniel, perhaps you misread. I told you the sources were also included in the List of Presidents article. Squeak, you have included one biased source: of course the government which he dismissed refused to recognize him. Please provide high-quality reliable sources upon which text can be based. For example, media accounts of the issues JRSP raises would be sufficient to include the alternate point of view. Please review WP:V and WP:RS. Thanks, Sandy 19:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Here are 2 BBC articles [9] and [10] neither of which claim that Carmona was President, so even the |BBC was only claiming that while he was in power. In these 2 articles it is clear that hje neber was President so perhaps you would like to find ome refs that wetrent the BBC, SqueakBox 19:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

teleSUR also call his regime al régimen de facto de Pedro Carmona Estanca so doesnt look like they recognise him as President either, SqueakBox 19:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are still not understanding WP:V and WP:RS. Please provice a reliable source that says he was not President, and that view can be presented (without undue weight) as an alternative view, within the text. Sandy 19:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Erm... Yes they do. "Mr Carmona proclaimed himself president after violent anti-government protests which resulted in 17 deaths." (first source) and "Pedro Carmona, the Venezuelan businessman who briefly replaced President Hugo Chavez" (second) both state, in one way or another, that he was president. I hope I do not have to file a RFC on this article just because you don't seem to understand the term "president of VE". As of just now, the article is protected. Iolakana|^T 19:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Kilo-Lima/lolakana, were you supposed to remove the "Neutrality Disputed" tag when you locked the article? Seems to me you should have left it to reflect the reasonable disagreement over the article content. DanielM 19:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. As an admin he is not also allowed to be an editor. Reverting to one's own version and then locking is clearly against the rules of how admins should act and should be reported at the incidents page if not as an Rfc for abuse of admin powers, SqueakBox 19:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. As an admin he is not also allowed to be an editor. Reverting to one's own version and then locking is clearly against the rules of how admins should act and should be reported at the incidents page if not as an Rfc for abuse of admin powers, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin abuse by Kilo-Limaon Pedro Carmona, SqueakBox 19:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Protection is there for prevention. This is a dipute, and when disputes get out of hand (like now) protection comes in. Don't try and threated me. Iolakana|^T 20:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

No one is threatening you? How so? There is a dispute and you are a part of it. Why not ask another admin to lock the page. Gibven there is a dispute it might be an idea to leave in the dispute tag dont you think? SqueakBox 20:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Back to the point: Apart from not being recognized as president neither by the national assembly, nor by any country in the world, UN or OAS; Carmona never appointed a full cabinet JRSP 20:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

So, JRSP, I take it that you have no reliable sources, since you've provided none? (How can you appoint a cabinet in two days?) Sandy 20:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

So what we have is Carmona's word for it backed up by the BBC at the time and the article locked in case anyone disagrees that he is President, SqueakBox 20:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I do not feel it is so. You're false facts... are... quite simply... false. Anyway, obviouslt the UN is not always up-to-date with VE. If Junichiro Koizumi resigned and someone else became prime minister, would the UN know in several minutes of this happening? Of course not. Iolakana|^T 20:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Chavez never resigned! Whatr false facts? The only false fact I see is the claim that he was President. Of course reputable sources never claimed he wasnt President of Venezuala, no need to state the obvious as such a statement would have played into the hands of Carmona supporters, SqueakBox 20:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if a media report would be a valid source in this case. When someone that is not in the constitutional line of succesion and without a presidential resignation claims himself to be the president, this is an extraordinary claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. I don't think the BBC has more authority than the National Assembly of Venezuela on deciding who is President of Venezuela JRSP 20:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Original research: he didn't install himself. Please provide some sources !!! Sandy 20:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps you should provide us Chávez letter of resignation, Sandy JRSP 20:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Primary sources are not used as reliable sources on Wikipedia. Please provide a reliable source, JRSP, and we can incorporate the text which states that some believe Chavez never resigned. (By the way, have you not seen the transcripts of Chavez's statements while he was at Fuerte Tiuna? If you want primary sources, that's one.) Sandy 20:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

And some specific sources that deal with this issue and claim he is President. The BBC were probably mistaken and are a pathetic source for an extremist claim (that he was President) as all we really have is that Carmona claims he was President. To claim that anyone opposing his claim is guilty of vandalsim is an abuse of this encyclopedia, SqueakBox 20:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC) SqueakBox 20:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The burden of proof is on those claiming Carmona was the president. Show us the resignation letter, please JRSP 21:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The burden of proof is to provide reliable sources, not primary soruce documents. The article has four BBC sources, and you have presented nothing which refutes the information. Here are more. Latin Business Chronicle, PBS, CNN,CNN Sandy 21:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

And, a transcript of Chavez's comments while being held by the military. Sandy 21:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hugo Chávez's article implies he wasnt the former Prersident, neither he or his criminal accomplice who some claim was also President, so wikipedia has been claiming 2 different things for ages. Hadn't you better fix the "vandalism" on that page and send templates to the talk page of the vandal? SqueakBox 21:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I hope that this set of sources clarifies that Carmona was indeed an interim president. Whether he was legally placed there or not, or who and how put him as the head of the government is another issue. What is sure is that he was a president:

• BBC News - "Pedro Carmona was installed by military officers as Venezuela's interim president on 12 April (...)"
• CNN - "Provisional Venezuelan President Pedro Carmona (...)"
• MSNBC - "(...) interim President Pedro Carmona (...)"
• CBS News - "Carmona, who was president for less than 24 hours (...)"
• CBS News - "Pedro Carmona, interim president"
• CBS News - "(...) interim president installed by the military, businessman Pedro Carmona, (...)"
• And for those who are still doubting, I even found an Al Jazeera article that calls Carmona a president: Al Jazeera - "(...) the businessman Pedro Carmona - who would briefly be named president during the coup (...)"

I hope this closes the case.--enano ^(Talk) 22:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

All we actually need is to source Chavez has been President since 1999 to prove the Chavez point. This is clearly stated in the info box to Chavez amongst other places, SqueakBox 22:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please read WP:V and WP:RS. Info boxes on Wikipedia are not reliable sources. Please note that the text in the Hugo Chávez article is accurate, even if the situation is too complex to present in the presidential info box. There are about twelve sources now which state Carmona was interim president, very reliable. Sandy 23:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

One of the sources claims that Carmona was president for less than 24 hours while the article says he was president for 36h... JRSP 23:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

And ? Sandy 23:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

If infoboxes on wikipedia arent a reliable source why kick up the fuss about the removal of one as if (incorrectly) vital sources ahd been deleted by so doing. The Chavez box is like it is because people want it that way because they dont believe Carmona was President, as the Venezuelan gov doesn't believe it nor do most people, SqueakBox 23:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Sandy and enano on this one. There are various secondary sources stating that he was in fact an interim president. Did we all of the sudden forget WP:V and all that talk about primary and secondary sources?? Spaceriqui 23:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Regarding confusion in presidential succession numbers

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I see a number of statements above that don't take into account the problems with counting presidents, presidential terms, and succession order in Venezuelan presidents. Please read the discussion at Talk:List of Presidents of Venezuela. We need to get this right, rather than willy nilly deleting and changing information that is covered in a number of places. Because of the complexity of its history with respect to presidential succession, the table at Lists presents three different ways of counting presidents in Venezuela. Venezuela does not have clean, well-numbered lines of succession as, for example, the USA does. For example, there is a certain number of people who were President, and another number of presidential terms, as well as a number of "caretaker" "Presidents" in between. The List reflects all of those. SqueakBox should rest assured that Carmona, Cabello, and all of the other "interim" or "caretaker" presidents are not included in the tally of 53, but they are included to show a historical record that "something" happened there. The goal is to inform the Wiki reader via reliable sources. Can we please work together on this, rather than deleting material which was carefully constructed by prior editors? Deletionist editing without reviewing all of the issues and building consensus with all of the editors just creates extra work for everyone and foments discord. There is a long history around these articles and templates: let's figure it out, work together, and make any changes needed only once, after building consensus. Sandy 13:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Consensus

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A good place to start building consensus would be to unlock the article and restore the NPOV tag, without this I dont see how any consensus can be built as consensus requires good faith on all sides and one side on this argument is not showing it. This is the US version of history and not a credible encyclopedia article, SqueakBox 17:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why should we? Not until it is stable and everyone agrees, including you; because if I un-protect it right now then you will just do what you done and insert your "sources" and remove the infobox. So, I assume you wish to make a poll; something along the lines of:

• Those who agree to keep the infobox and actually tell the facts that he was president, or
• Those who seem to think that Pedro was not a president and remove the infobox? Iolakana|^T 18:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The article does not currently reflect any POV. It reflects a broad number of reliable sources, which is what Wiki is based on. If you want to balance the article by adding information stating that some say Carmona was never president, you still have not given us a reliable source upon which to base that content addition. If you provide it, it can be added.

There are *numerous* issues to be addressed on all of the articles about Venezuelan presidential info. I don't see any reason to unprotect the article if SqueakBox isn't willing to respect WP:V and WP:RS. It's not just this article that needs to be fixed, and we needn't be destructing carefully constructed tables and templates without broad consensus.

I can suggest, based on the discussions we've had at Talk:List of Presidents of Venezuela, a number of compromises that might satisfy SqueakBox. However, I'm not going to take the time to type up some ideas for developing a broader consensus including many editors of the Venezuelan articles, unless Squeak shows some interest in working via consensus, and respecting Wiki policies. If there is interest, I will type up some proposals at Talk:List of Presidents of Venezuela, for how we can handle all of these issues throughout the Venezuelan presidential articles. However, if we do that, I hope we will allow time for a number of editors to register their opinions and build consensus. The trend on the Venezuelan articles of deletionist, obstructionist editing without building consensus is tiring.

(Kllo-Lama, thank you for cleaning up the refs.) Sandy 19:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Admin abuse

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Editing an article one has protected is against the rules of how admins should act. Clearly yet another case of a rogue admin, SqueakBox 19:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

All he did was introduce the <references/> system, the content remains the same. --enano ^(Talk) 21:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Squeak, can we get on to the issues of fixing the things that need to be fixed? If you can provide a reliable source, we can adjust the text according to what you want it to say, and then move on to looking at some other problems in the Lists and template. I can't imagine why you object to the insertion of ref tags in a protected article. Sandy 21:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply