Talk:Juan Guaidó/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

RfC on Acting President

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Rough consensus for option 1. 8 editors in favor of option 1, 5 in favor of option 2, and no clear basis to discount any votes. Additional stipulations made by editors that this outcome means that "disputed with Maduro" should be removed from the infobox, or that similar changes should be made to Nicolas Maduro did not receive wide discussion and are out of the scope of this closure. There was also additional discussion following some out of process editing after discussion had died down that I did not include in the above counts, but as it included two editors supporting option 1 and one editor simply arguing that a consensus hadn't formed, I don't think that it changes the outcome. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Juan Guaidó, the Venezuelan National Assembly, and some governments have declared Guaidó to be "Acting President," a title the first line of our infobox currently presents as a fact. However, other governments continue to recognize Maduro as the president of Venezuela, and there is no dispute that Maduro remains in control of the country. Should the first line of our infobox note that Guaidó's "Acting President" description is contested, or not?

• Option 1 - Write "Acting President of Venezuela (contested)"
• Option 2 - Write "Acting President of Venezuela"

Please write your thoughts below. -Darouet (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC comments

• Option 1 - it is deceiving to readers and contrary to the state of affairs in Venezuela for over a year now to suggest that Guaidó's position as "acting president" is not contested. -Darouet (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 - He's hardly the acting president at all, considering that he has no decision making power and is not recognized by most of the world. The "contested" designation is generous in my humble opinion. LittleChongsto (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 – "Disputed with Nicolás Maduro" is written already in the infobox.--MaoGo (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 – Maduro's status is more "disputed" than Guiado's, so adding more "disputed" to Guaido is unbalanced. Enough has been said on this, no need to add more to the first line. Venezuela has no constitutionally elected President, and Guaido's temporary status is within the law. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the legal legitimacy of either person’s claim to have the right to rule. But Maduro actually runs Venezuela while Guaido does not. So writing that Guaido is “acting” president without qualification is false and misleads readers. -Darouet (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 - it is definitely contested since Guaido announced himself the president a while ago and nothing has changed regarding his role and activities, other than US and its allies "accepting" his proclamation. Maduro is the one physically in charge of the country and the person who has presidential powers at the moment. BeŻet (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 - Agree with MaoGo, adding "contested" would be redundant since the infobox already states "Disputed with Nicolás Maduro" two lines down. I see Darouet's point about making clear who has de-facto control of Venezuela, but can't see how having both "contested" and "disputed" will tell our readers anything that "disputed" doesn't already. --RaiderAspect (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 - This should be water under the bridge by now. The presidency dispute is not in question, what should be argued is why an additional qualification should be added. It was already agree upon to simply add the subtitle "Disputed with Nicolás Maduro", and adding an additional word does not help reflecting both points of view per WP:NPOV. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Saying acting without qualification is misleading because it implies that he is carrying out the functions of the office of president without actually holding it. In fact he is not carrying out any presidential functions except in foreign visits. And while he is recognized by 60 countries, most countries do not recognize him and Maduro's ambassador is still accredited to the UN. TFD (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, provided the lower line about disputed is removed. Obviously it is contested. If it weren't, he would be able to act as president, which for the most part he isn't. Therefore, the "disputed" status should be mentioned right up front. But an infobox shouldn't say the same thing twice. Therefore, the later line where it says it is disputed should be removed. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment For the users that have not seen the article, I want to restate that the infobox already has a subtitle stating that the presidency is disputed. I worry that the RfC is malformed and does not reflect this.--Jamez42 (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you point to commits that show the options? Adoring nanny (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jamez42 and Adoring nanny: Yes, the article has a qualifying subtitle several lines below the very first and bolded line of the infobox, which appears to unequivocally state that Guaido is the Acting President of Venezuela. That infobox line is deeply misleading, because as other editors note, Guaido is in fact not carrying out any presidential functions except in foreign visits, and in practice, [Guaido] doesn't have specific responsibility in comparison with Nicolas Maduro who is pragmatically the president of Venezuela, and Maduro is the one physically in charge of the country and the person who has presidential powers at the moment. Editors are not being deceived by this RfC. Readers are being deceived by the infobox. This state of affairs needs to change. -Darouet (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 Guaido might not been considered as a practical president; (as well as not being recognized by most countries of the world...) and in practice, he doesn't have specific responsibility in comparison with Nicolas Maduro who is pragmatically the president of Venezuela. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• OPTION 2 - there is no ‘contested’ in the RS, and it seems an invalid distortion of title — the dispute not over the title ‘Acting President’. The dispute is clear enough in the body, it doesn’t need it here as well. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 – "Disputed with Nicolás Maduro" is written already in the infobox. Mr. Awesome, PhD (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC) — Datamaster1 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Mmoates (talk • contribs).
• Option 1: If his disputed status as acting president is to be included at all, the disputed nature of his status should be indicated directly after it is mentioned, not several lines below. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 It is contested. Duh. ~ HAL333 02:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC discussion

I don't understand this RfC the lead states he declared himself acting President and it is challenged by Maduro, also it says disputed in the infobox right away.--MaoGo (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The first line of the infobox should have (disputed) added in the same line as “Acting President.” -Darouet (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

But disputed is already there, also does this apply to Maduro (and Luis Parra) too?--MaoGo (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I think a conversation had to be had before opening this RfC, not only it seems redundant, but it also forgets all the other RfC on the infobox that never reached a consensus. In the last rfc we never decided if we even keep the infobox.--MaoGo (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. There was never consensus on this page to have the first line of the infobox read “Acting President,” full stop. By lumping this issue in with a thousand other issues in the previous RfC, the highly problematic first line of the infobox was maintained. We need to address it directly. If you’d like to alter some other aspect of the infobox that’s a separate issue. -Darouet (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Should we add the disputed inline template there because it is disputed on the talk page (no consensus reached)? BeŻet (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

That probably would be redundant as well. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I get that some of those that support option 1 are debating Guaidó status but could somebody develop on why "Disputed with Nicolás Maduro" (which is already in the infobox) is not enough? --MaoGo (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC) It seems that everyone agrees that his status is disputed. I agree that it should say it right up where it says he is President. I also agree it shouldn't say it twice. Why not just move it up to the top? Adoring nanny (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Downside to that is that the infobox wont mention who Guaido is disputing the Presidency with anymore. --RaiderAspect (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Writing “(Disputed with Nicolas Maduro)” at the top is also feasible. But omitting the qualification that Guaido doesn’t actually act as president of Venezuela actively misleads readers.-Darouet (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I have to add that to be balanced, the convention should also apply to Nicolás Maduro's infobox. If I recall correctly, it was agreed upon that adding the dispute below was the best alternative. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

To put the reason I change the infobox also here (as requested): 'I'm by far a fan of Maduro, but 'acting' means he is the president that currently holds the power in Venezuela, but he does not. Only foreign countries recognizes him as president, but on the ground he's not. That's the situation, I can't help that.' So that's why I removed 'acting' and added 'disputed'. Jeroen (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Jeroen: But - as you can see above and as I said in the edit reason when I removed it - there has been a lot of discussion to come to a compromise that won't cause edit wars over terminology. And discussion has been recently ongoing. It doesn't matter what your single interpretation of the situation is for something this controversial, or do you dictate who is president of Venezuela? No, so discuss before making any changes to the acting/president/disputed title. Kingsif (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: There doesn't appear to be any consensus over retaining the acting president title in the infobox. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: No. There is no consensus to remove it, which is what needs to be sought, especially for contentious articles. Do you want to go through the history and see how many edit wars started by changing that title? Kingsif (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

In every recent news article he is called an opposition leader, not a member of the government. Is this really something you want to dispute? Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: 1. In the context of Venezuelan politics, 'opposition' does not carry the implications you think it does. 2. It doesn't matter anyway, you NEED consensus (not just your spearheaded belief that something is wrong) if you want to remove the compromise surrounding the controversial information. Nicolás Maduro had an opinion on the matter (really), and we still had a talkpage discussion. Tell me if you think your uninformed opinion is any more valuable, because it isn't, and you'll alienate yourself from anything Venezuela-related very quickly for not understand the absolute need for caution in this area. Kingsif (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

What implication do you think I think it carries? None of what I have said is my opinion, uninformed or otherwise, but purely from reliable sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm bored, you seem to be deliberately reading around what I'm trying to explain to you. Refer back to point 2, and start a new edit discussion to get consensus if you want to fight about it. Kingsif (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

What I've done is asking you something directly about what you've said about me. If you don't want to support that, you should withdraw. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Or you're being a pedant for the sake of it. But here: whatever implication makes you think that Guaidó is not a member of the government. It could be a few, but it's wrong. You have expressed an opinion: that the infobox needs changing. And that opinion is certainly uninformed based on one adjective that you've misunderstood from some non-specified sources. Your insistence that your opinion on edits that should be made based on a minimal understanding of the situation must be done shows that you have no intention of working with me, and your assertion in your edit reason that the title was outdated shows that you don't have any idea of the context of the ongoing dispute. Before any of this even matters, before you put up any argument about RS, before you made the edit, you should have sought consensus. One of the biggest disputes on this page is the terminology in the infobox. The President of Venezuela has given an opinion on the terminology in the infobox! And yet you come with no prior edits on Venezuela and assert that you are correct. I only tell you that you need to get consensus - the controversial tag is very clear on the talkpage - and you either pretend to be dense or really don't understand what 'it doesn't matter what you think or what sources say, get consensus first' means, but you draw out a pointless conversation. I have explained how you are wrong, and told you to start an edit discussion if it matters to you. You ask me tangential questions and refuse to start a discussion, and now I refuse to reply since you're evidently not here to collaborate. Your talkpage shows an awful record of the same behavior, and I now also believe that you design your replies just to annoy the hell out of other editors. Kingsif (talk) 04:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much everything you're saying about me here is wrong, even small matters such as a fantastical accusation that I have insisted edits should be made based on "a minimal understanding". It would be more appropriate to argue against your personal attacks on a user talk page, if at all. I'm not sure how you can complain both that I haven't started a discussion, and also the discussion that is currently happening. To be precise, Guaido is not a member of the executive government. This is not based on reliable sources portraying him as opposition instead of government, rather it's the lack of sources referring to him as president, so I made a bold edit. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

You are the kind of editor that makes nobody want to work with you, because all of your comments are entirely characteristic of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. You are wrong. Your very first comment was that there was no consensus to keep something on the page. That isn't how things work - you can't remove something (something very controversial that you very clearly know nothing about) and then say that because there wasn't consensus to keep it before you removed it, it shouldn't be added back. You also seem to be willfully ignoring the talk page banner at the top reminding editors that the content of this page (especially the single exact thing that you are editing) is controversial and to be bold, but not WP:RECKLESS. You MUST get consensus before editing, and you have not started a conversation seeking to reach consensus - in fact, every single one of your comments has been attacking me (in the subtle sense - they are all directed at me and are negative, you do the math). For the love of sense, please stop. You cannot seem to understand that you are a dangerously disruptive editor, and I do not want to have to try explain it to you anymore. I've fed the troll enough, and will no longer reply for my own goddamn sanity. Consider this your final warning, and any more attacks on my competence or any edits to this and related pages without consensus WILL get you reported. Kingsif (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

It's absurd that you claim to be personally attacked by anything I've said considering the direct accusations you've made about me. I've simply never said anything like because there wasn't consensus to keep it before you removed it, it shouldn't be added back. Either support your personal reflections on me with evidence, or withdraw them. You can consider this your "final warning" as well. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

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

About the committee in the lead

I have been requested to undo my edit [1]. What I meant by alleged is that I am not sure that Guaidó's or his team have officially acknowledge it aside from Rendón. But more importantly, I don't understand why it should appear in the lead, the subject is delicate and maybe it is better to treat it accordingly in its respective section. I open this discussion so others can provide some feedback.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for undoing your edit, I appreciate that. To me it looks like the existence of the group has been confirmed as much as it can be: by a high-ranking member and politician, so there's no real ambiguity there. He also openly confirmed that the group is indeed looking into removing Maduro by force. I think the only "delicate" aspect of this situation is the fact that it is not compatible with the carefully crafted media image that Guaido has, thus creating a cognitive dissonance. To reiterate what I said on your talk page, Guaido actively looking into removing Maduro is quite a significant aspect of his activities, thus deserves a mention in the paragraph describing what he's been up to. BeŻet (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree that the committee should not be included in the lead since it has not been among the notable decisions or actions of Guaidó. Said committee had not received important coverage until the recent events in Macuto. --Jamez42 (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK the existence of the committee was only revealed because of the events in Macuto. I also disagree that it has not received coverage – a lot of sources have talked about it when talking about the failed coup/raid. BeŻet (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd have agreed if not for the Macuto Bay raid, an event of great political signifiance in Latin America, with which Guaido was involved. Considering that it's an extremely important event that happened relatively recently, but not so recently as to fall under WP:RECENTISM, I opine that it ought to continue being included in the lead, for as long as RS explicitly mention Guaido's involvement in the affair. Goodposts (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Julio Borges y Henrique Capriles.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

NPOV

The format of the article is misleading in that it talks about him and his actions as if he's actually the president of Venezuela. He isn't, he just thinks he is.

I think that's pretty clearly an NPOV issue, because similar deluded people aren't covered on wikipedia this way. Emperor Norton, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a442:581e:1:14c0:17a6:946b:cc83 (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Please address specific stances so we may discuss it properly. Are there any paragraphs that come to mind?--MaoGo (talk) 08:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A442:581E:1:3DD7:5AF:C24F:378C (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I hope you understand that we had many complaints about "neutrality" and large chunks of texts have been modified and discussed, we have arrived to this version by consensus. Without a proper description it is hard for us users to tackle general issues. --MaoGo (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Article says he's "acting president" and lists when he "assumed office" and says maduro is his "predecessor".

That's inherently ridiculous because the Venezuelan government does not employ him in any such role of acting president, he does not hold any government office at all as of 2020 and has literally been reduced to trying to climb the fences of government buildings to try and get inside. It was caught by a camera crew to his international embarrassment.

It is clear that he is no more "acting president" than emperor Norton was really the American emperor. He is categorically not one.

Since Wikipedia doesn't recognize Norton as a real emperor, it shouldn't recognize this guy as a real acting president either.

Instead it would be better to talk about him as what he is. A provocateur, possibly mental health sufferer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A442:581E:1:A902:6E00:85EE:77E0 (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The democratically elected National Assembly elected him as it's leader. Maduro held fraudulent presidential elections, recognized by virtually no one, in 2018, in which none of the opposition was even allowed to run. The OAS voted 19-6 to not recognize the legitimacy of Maduro, and to call for new elections. The National Assembly made clear that when Maduro's term was up, the presidency would be vacant, and according to the Venezuelan constitution, the head of the National Assembly then became interim president. The only *free* nations in the entire world which continued to recognize Maduro as president after that were India and South Africa. Maduro then staged a military coup. His troops recently barred the entire National Assembly, the only legitimate democratic institution left, from a government building. But they proceeded to re-elect Guiado anyway, in a 100-0 vote, as recognized here by the OAS. An NPOV article can certainly also include the viewpoints of Maduro and of the other authoritarian tyrants who still recognize his regime. But 57 nations, including most of free world, recognize the Interim President. Are they all suffering from mental health issues? Acerimusdux (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Guaido's leadership of the National Assembly is also supposedly disputed. BlackOpsJew (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to engage in purely an argument over politics, Acerimusdux, but in the linked BBC article, although the framing of the headline is meant to conjure red scare fears of totalitarian one-party states, the body makes it clear that those parties boycotted elections (in fact this was because they knew they had little chance of winning). Your delineation between the "free world" and "authoritarian tyrants" mostly seems to rest on which countries are aligned with the United States, and which are its official enemies. And it doesn't do to hand-wring about "legitimate democratic institutions," then insist that the OAS, an organization which is not part of Venezuela's government and is in fact based in Washington, D.C., should have the final say in who gets to lead the Venezuelan people.

It's undeniable that the major western news outlets which Wikipedia considers reliable are in agreement that Maduro's leadership is not "legitimate," but I think it should be also apparent that the many contradictions in the arguments for version of the facts make it hard to honestly incorporate into Wikipedia 73.164.9.46 (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

How is this even in question? What presidential duties has Guiadó filled? Was there a popular election that he won? Has he ever sat in the presidential office? The entire world could recognize him but it wouldn't matter because Venezuela doesn't. Yautja1917 (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It’s a question because laws would probably make him the official head of state and because of widespread agreement that he is the president among the National Assembly, foreign governments, and news sources. The question is not whether we Wikipedia editors agree. I think the article is clear about the disputed nature of the claim. What specific changes would you like to see?Rscragun (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Julio Borges y Henrique Capriles.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Acting president?

There aren't any recent sources characterising Guaido as the acting president. I would normally remove it from the article on that basis, but I don't want to start any edit wars. Are there any objections? Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

An article from France 24 on 4 Aug 2020 says the U.S. is confident that their allies will continue to back his claim.[2] I think though the wording should be changed because it implies he has a legitimate claim and that he's actually running the country. Come 20 January, will the info-box for Donald Trump continue to say "President of the United States" with a note lower down saying "Disputed with Joe Biden?" TFD (talk) 01:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The United States government may very well say that, but they are a biased source. I couldn't find a single recent reliable source that affirms Guaido is in any way acting as a president of Venezuela. Surely someone and their supporters claiming they are the acting president isn't enough. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The claim is still there per opposition parties see [3] [4]. Also no country has removed their recognition, see Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

As this was a decision by the parliament, I would suggest to at least wait until the new parliament starts its period in January, but even then, the parliamentary elections have been contested, it looks as if both claims, to the parliament and presidency, will not end there.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

He can still claim to be the president of Venezuela, and that may be supported by foreign governments, but that doesn't mean he is the president. There aren't any reliable sources saying that he is in any way the president of the country, either disputed or undisputed. We certainly can't accept what he or any politician says to be true on their words alone. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Reliables sources are not explicitly saying that he is not the president either, they are saying that is recognized as so by his parliament and foreign countries, that's why "contested" is right next to his position.--ReyHahn (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

They're not saying that I'm not the president of Venezuela either. Reliable sources are saying that other countries recognise him as president, but the reliable sources themselves don't state that he is a contested president. They mostly refer to him as an opposition leader. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that listing him as “acting president” is aspirational at best, and more realistically just a small piece of propaganda. In any event I’ve restored “contested” to the line listing him as “acting” president, per the clear result of a prior RfC. -Darouet (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

There wasn't a clear result in the previous RfC discussion, and can easily be overturned by a discussion here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: the idea of listing Guaidó as “acting president” here has always been contested, and I’d support removing that term altogether from the infobox, since it’s misleading. -Darouet (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

We have discussed that before. I have always argued for not having an infobox as it is not a simple issue, but some users here are too keen to having the information summarized that way that even when we have tried it, users quickly add it back again. That said, Guaidó still has some international relevance concerning Venezuela, he controls Venezuelan reserves in US, the Venezuelan board in OAS is Guaido's, some embassies are controlled by his team, and even in he participated in the UN General Assembly. To me this is like Taiwan and Mainland China, where each one claims each other land, so we have to indicate it in the infobox and maps, even if it is not the "de facto" situation.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: you’re undeniably correct when you write that Guaidó still has some international relevance concerning Venezuela, and the examples you give are an excellent summary. The problem is that all of this, while meaningful, doesn’t amount to the term “acting president,” which implies a control over everyday affairs in act, or actuality. Perhaps “opposition leader,” or “challenger to Maduro’s rule,” would be more accurate and acceptable to all. -Darouet (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet: There have been extensive discussions on what terminology to use, and the accepted translation for the accepted term in Spanish (encargado) was chosen as "acting". It's a compromise from a lot of discussion about how to succinctly convey it, and you can try to seek consensus for a change but it's not going to come quickly. Kingsif (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Kingsif - going back through discussions here as far as June 2019 - 18 months - I see no consensus whatsoever for the phrase “acting president” in the infobox. It’s been contested this whole time. Darouet (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet: Well the controversy began in Jan 2019 and this is far from the only article where it's been discussed. You've just not found it, because I distinctly remember there even being a discussion over the best translation of encargado. Kingsif (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

We don't say that Xi Jinping or Tsai Ing-wen are disputed presidents either, or that Taiwan controls China or that China controls Taiwan. Wikipedia takes the de facto situation as the most relevant, and then describes de jure positions in their context but doesn't represent them as fact. I think this discussion shows clearly that there is no support for "acting president", and that the extent to which Guaido contests the presidency of Venezuela is best left described in the text of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Whatever China has to say about it, the Taiwanese government is the "acting" government of the Island of Taiwan: nobody else controls it. But Guaidó is not running Venezuela. -Darouet (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

These claims that no sources can be found are most intriguing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: The consensus is based on the expressions by myself, The Four Deuces, Davide King and Darouet, with the lack of recent reliable sources referring to Guaido as president, acting president or encargado president (and not only reporting that he and certain interested parties describe him as such). I would ask you to self-revert so that the acting president office is omitted, and we can discuss what if anything should replace it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The new verson, "President of the National Assembly of Venezuela (contested)", seems fine to me and preferable to "Acting president (contested)". I wonder if this needs a new RfC though, given it is not that long since closure of the previous one? Several sources from 2020 say he declared himself acting president[5] but this is on the basis of his 2019 presidency of the National Assembly. Would it be sensible for more dust to settle after the (also contested) 2020 National Assembly election and review again? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, until now the criteria for changes has been the pronouncement of individual governments, and there hasn't been substantial changes in that regard; I would advise to look into internal changes to make this decision. Until then, or until there is a new RfC, the "Acting president (contested)" label should be kept. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. See also Talk:Venezuelan presidential crisis#End_date.--ReyHahn (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to share something I wrote in the Presidential Crisis article talk page. It goes as follows:

I'd concur that this aspect of the Venezuelan crisis appears to be over. With the opposition's own election boycott rendering accusations of vote rigging moot over the question of whether or not their mandate remains in power, they have essentially surrendered any potential claims to legitimacy as they have lost the last opposition-controlled institution and along with it, any institutional power and credibility they might have held. This does not necessarily legitimize Maduro, but it does delegitimize Guaidó, as there is no legal mechanism trough which he can continue to claim to be President of Venezuela. In practice not much has changed, as Guaidó never managed to actually exercise power as President, as his 'interim Presidency' was never recognized by Venezuelan courts, electoral authorities or other state institutions (most notably the military and security forces). It's already been two years since the start of the crisis and it has become apparent that he has failed at unseating Maduro, at least for the time being. Presently, there is not a single state institution in Venezuela that recognizes Guaidó as President and moreover, he has now also lost his seat in the National Assembly, which returns him to the status of a simple private citizen of Venezuela. The EU's new declaration clearly states that it does not recognize him as interim president anymore and their designation of him as an assembly member of the outgoing assembly implicitly recognizes the reality of the new assembly. This does not equate with support for Maduro, but it does mean that from now on Juan Guaidó will be seen by the EU as a Venezuelan opposition leader and nothing more. Of course, the EU is not the supreme international arbiter of heads of state and countries such as the US and the UK still recognize him as interim president. However, that too may soon change with the end of Trump's term. In any case, Guaidó's undisputed end of term due to the end of the election, coupled with the recent rejection of recognition and his inability to come into or exercise power for two whole years, in my opinion, is grounds enough to consider this aspect of the crisis over. It does not mean that the crisis is over, but merely that the legal challenge to Maduro's presidency appears to be over, with the opposition and international power brokers unaligned with Maduro instead preferring to switch to a more generic support for new elections, rather than recognizing an opposing government.

Moreover, in other articles, such as that for Syria, we list Bashar al-Assad as President, despite the fact that there are still armed groups that dispute this, and the fact that these armed groups are backed by some foreign supporters. The reason for this is because on one hand, listing Assad as President represents the de facto state of affairs, as well as the fact that there are no serious, legitimate challengers to that title that are supported as such by reliable sources. Whether or not Maduro is the rightful president, or deserves to be president - is another matter. It is, however, now indisputable that he is the president of Venezuela. With the fall of opposition control over the AN, there isn't a single institution in Venezuela to back his claim and most RS concur that his continued claims after the end of the outgoing assembly have no legal grounds. That's not to mention the fact that he has not been able to step into actual power for two years now. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Goodposts, there is no legal or political institution within Venezuela that can proclaim Juan Guaidó as the President of Venezuela. If it is to be mentioned, is should be in the text section of the article. Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Onetwothreeip, The Four Deuces, ReyHahn, Kingsif, SandyGeorgia, Bobfrombrockley, Goodposts, and Ip says: the RfC last year [6][7] asked, "Should the first line of our infobox note that Guaidó's "Acting President" description is contested, or not?" The RfC didn't ask whether "Acting President" was itself an appropriate title for the infobox, but instead, whether such a title should be accompanied by the qualifier "contested." An RfC on the infobox one year earlier produced no clear outcome [8]. Based on the discussion above, it seems clear that the already tenuous argument in favor of the "acting president" designation has, after the passage of time, further eroded and has little support here. I'm therefore implementing Bob's proposal, "President of the National Assembly of Venezuela (contested)." Feel free to discuss here if interested. -Darouet (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I apologize Bobfrombrockley, my first ping failed. -Darouet (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Whoops, I see NoonIcarus that I failed to ping you, but you also participated in the discussion. Rectifying now. -Darouet (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Darouet: Many thanks for the ping! Based on the last comments, I'll comment that the presidential crisis clearly remains, and the label was placed in the first place to reflect this. While the main change in international policy appears to be the European Union, this position has been taken has an organization and not individually, and it still does not recognize Maduro as president. Regardless, it is up for the community to decide if the label should stay. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Darouet: Thanks for the notification. I think we should separate the concept of non-support of Guaido from support for Maduro. This kind of represents a false dichotomy, as it is possible for a state to not support Maduro, while still not recognizing Guaido as the acting president in his place. The recent developments have mostly emphasised the second half of this equation - several states and intl' organizations, which in general do not support Maduro, recently dropped their recognition of Guaido. Moreover, the latter is no longer a even member of the national assembly, as he boycotted the election. As such, he also lost any legal backing for his claim. Consequently, I believe the "Acting President" label should be removed. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I can claim to be acting President of Venezuela. It doesn't mean anything. Nicolas Maduro holds the actual power, and just because Western Europe, the U.S. and Canada want to pretend that Guiado is President doesn't make it so. They have been involved in overthrowing any government they don't like for decades, democratically-elected or not. They're not an unbiased source, they want to pressure Maduro out of office. In fact, Guiado himself has deep Western ties. We should remove the "Acting President" label without delay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:9A44:6A1C:D9B8:F509:B407:EBC9 (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Juan Guaido is not the President; Maduro is.

I have made this change with the edit summary:

Juan Guaido is no longer called the "acting President of Venezuela" by reliable sources, even though the U.S. still does. Maduro continues to be the democratically-elected President.

See [9], [10], [11], [12]. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Guaidó's claim to the presidency is still notable. (No comment on the legitimacy. We could argue about that ad nauseam. However, he still claims to be the acting president.) --2A02:AB04:2AB:700:3D77:E7B9:78F3:C8F0 (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

We should add in the lead after where it says, "He has received formal recognition of legitimacy from almost 60 governments," that the 27 EU governments have withdrawn recognition. It is already in the body of the article. We should add too if other governments have withdrawn recognition. TFD (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Agree. Please do. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• However, he still claims to be the acting president. So does Donald Trump--from the WP:LEDE of that article:

Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden, but refused to concede. Attempting to overturn the results, he falsely claimed electoral fraud, pressured government officials, mounted scores of unsuccessful legal challenges and obstructed the presidential transition. On January 6, 2021, Trump urged his supporters to march to the Capitol, which hundreds stormed, interrupting the electoral vote count.

So are you saying that the Donald Trump page should be changed to say the Presidency of the United States is disputed? That seems to be the logic you are using. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: While the European Council has withdrawn recognition, its European Parliament voted to continue with the recognition and the Council continues rejecting Maduro nevertheless. Until now the format has consisted to change the recognition following the individual declaration of each government, which frustratingly appears unlikely to happen given the diplomatic situation. In any case, I have made additions to the lead to reflect the status based on the main presidential crisis article. There are ongoing negotiations between the government and the opposition in Mexico and one of the agreements could be to abandon the presidential claim, so any further developments can be implemented accordingly. --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: reverted with the edit summary:

This was discussed at Talk:Juan Guaidó#Acting president?, where an agreement wasn't reached. Please see talk page.

Yes, I saw that. That was in December of 2020 with the last post in February 2021. In fact, the most recent replies show support for removing "Acting President." Now it is August of 2021 and things have changed. Please see the WP:RS I provided above. Please self-revert. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Could you please point out which are these most recent replies? Among the last replies, IP here said that presidential crisis is still notable and that Guaidó still claims the presidency, regardless of its legitimacy. Besides, as recently as this year there ae many other reliable sources that still refer to Guaidó as "interim" or "acting" president: [13][14][15][16][17] --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Of those five references, only Yahoo News could be considered reliable, but the article is so biased that it even uses Guaido himself as a source. Guaido is plainly not the president of Venezuela, whether that is acting, interim or disputed, and reliable sources assert that. He is largely characterised as an opposition figure, not as a head of state. It is relevant for the article that he and several other governments claim him to be, but this does not make it so and we cannot treat him as if he actually is what he claims to be. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not aware of any discussions or arguments that would make the rest of the references less reliable than Yahoo News. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: You made the change once again before continuing the discussion. Please avoid that. --NoonIcarus (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus for calling Guaido acting president, and as shown above a lack of reliable contemporary sources. On the contrary, most sources refer to Guaido as an opposition politician. Please stop restoring this highly contested content into the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Only one of those sources listed above is even possibly unreliable. You can't just go around calling RS's unreliable to support your own argument. You also shouldn't keep reverting your changes that are contested, whatever you think is true. You're showing a battleground mentality and blatantly lying, consider this a level 2 warning for disruptive editing. Kingsif (talk) 10:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Utterly ridiculous. I give you a level 1 or 3 warning, whichever is higher than 2. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're placing the cart before the horse. It is the removal of the position that does not have consensus to proceed. The infobox status has remained for two and a half years now, until this thread was opened now. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Interestingly enough, this was discussed on BBC World Service today. The crisis and economy were discussed in relation to power-sharing between Maduro and the opposition. Do you know what the experts concluded? That regardless of everything else, the situation has "come to an impasse", i.e. "dispute" is still accurate, and that Guaidó has a respectable claim because of one major reason. That reason being the UK still recognizes Guaidó and the UK holds Venezuela's gold reserves. This means that Guaidó is de facto in control of the Bank of Venezuela.
  And remember, micro-countries are considered "partially recognized" if only one other nation recognizes them, let alone one that has their money; territory is considered "disputed" just by multiple claims, regardless of their legitimacy. Not only do multiple, powerful, countries recognize Guaidó, he also has powers that Maduro doesn't. Kingsif (talk) 10:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  Americas Quarterly isn't necessarily unreliable, but doesn't come close to being a major reliable source that we can use. Atlantic Council is entirely advocacy, has a completely biased position as a policy and lobbying organisation, and is simply not a news or academic source. Yahoo News is usually close enough to being a major source, but the piece very obviously reflects an opinion of strong sympathy with Guaido. Miami Herald is paywalled and I can't see what they've written, but this is a local news source which is contradicted by national and international news. I can't find much information about Infobae, but clearly this is not a major news source.

  It should be obvious to anybody that these are cherrypicked sources, probably found by searching "Guaido" and "interim president". When searching simply for "Guaido", the major news sources refer to him as an opposition leader at most.

  Your understanding of monetary economics is wrong, but also irrelevant. Holding commodities like gold bullion are a very minor function of central banks, which mostly control interest rates, exchange rates, and the money supply. Monetary policy is firmly within control of the Maduro administration, which is the actual government of Venezuela. It wouldn't matter anyway, since monetary policy is usually not directly controlled by the head of state or head of government, and controlling monetary policy doesn't make someone president of a country. Either way it's irrelevant if the United Kingdom says Guaido is president, what matters is what reliable neutral sources say.

  We can and should say that Juan Guaido is or was recognised as president by certain governments, but Wikipedia cannot recognise this until the balance of reliable sources do, which they don't. They only report that Guaido is claiming this, but not that this is reality. This is now beyond argument and there is consensus against declaring Guaido president, whether that is acting, interim or otherwise. Continuing to add the content can only be seen as obstructive at this point. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that the recognition remains in a good part of Latin American countries, even if it has waned and with recent elections, and that the ambassador appointed by Guaidó continues representing Venezuela in the Organization of American States. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Yet another editor has shown their opposition to the change, I advise you to self revert. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The change in question is whether the subject is labelled as acting/interim president in this Wikipedia article. There is no consensus for such a change, and it is clearly a minority opinion on this talk page.

To your comment, it is not enough for Wikipedia that countries or organisations recognise Guaido as president, or that he performs functions like a president. We can only label him as the balance of reliable mainstream sources do, and it is up to those advocating we label him as such to show this to be the case. On the contrary, it is easily demonstrable that the most widely accepted sources do not consider him president, and consider him to be in opposition. It would be blatantly against our policies to side with relatively minor sources over the major sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Infobae is one of the leading independent news sources in South America. Not only is it major, accurate, and reliable, it’s also the most relevant. Or do you want entirely Russian sources, the ones you’ve proposed, which are unobjectionably biased towards Maduro? I also find it entirely laughable that when every editor who comes to this talk page disagrees with you changing the status quo of the article since its inception, you somehow still manage to type that anyone against you is in a minority position and there’s no consensus for their changes that aren’t changes. Since you are now edit warring on the article, you get a level 3 warning. One more, you’re being reported. Because you actually need grounds to give warnings. Kingsif (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You are lying. I have never proposed any Russian news sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

At best, this disputes the independence of some of the sources, not the reliability of all of them and let alone how they are less major or importants than the first ones provided. Even the sources provided as "proof" that he's considered only as an opposition leader recognize the existence of the presidential crisis:

• Reuters: "Following the disputed re-election of President Nicolas Maduro in 2018, Guaido, as head of parliament, became interim president."
• Aljazeera: "Guaido, who declared himself Venezuela’s president in 2019 through his position as parliament speaker, wants guarantees over electoral conditions and a clear programme for presidential elections."
• Times of India: "After tears of a frosty relationship Caracas and Washington fully broke diplomatic ties on January 23, 2019, when the US government recognized opposition leader Juan Guaido as Venezuela's interim president."

The neutral point of view (NPOV) pillar states that all the significant views on a topic must be reflected, which is what the article currently does, and the infobox already includes a clarification that this is disputed to reflect the controversy that comes with it, something that was already was decided on a RfC. The fact that there are reliable sources that use or recognize the term, and that there is still an important geopolitical position that holds this position shows that this is clearly not a minority point of view, let alone a fringe one. Please stop insisting on the change. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The only one of these three sources that supports Guaido's claim is Reuters, saying that Guaido was at some point interim president. Al Jazeera and Times of India only say that Guaido declares himself as president and that the United States government agrees with him, respectively. Most mainstream sources do not say he is any kind of president, they only say that he and others believe he is. It's certainly notable enough for us to write in the article that he and others claim that he is the president of Venezuela, but mainstream reliable sources say that Nicolas Maduro is president. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is how major sources have described Guaido most recently.

Washington Post: "The delegates of President Nicolás Maduro and the opposition, led by Juan Guaidó, were expected to debate issues such as conditions for elections and the lifting of foreign economic sanctions imposed on the government."

BBC News: "The opposition leader, Juan Guaidó, held his own swearing-in ceremony for MPs from the old congress."

France24: "The signing of two "partial agreements" came after representatives of President Nicolas Maduro and opposition leader Juan Guaido held four days of talks in Mexico City mediated by Norway."

Deutsche Welle: ""We will continue to advance in achieving a comprehensive agreement that allows the recovery of democracy in Venezuela through free and fair elections," said Juan Guaido, the opposition leader supported by the US."

Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Per the sources provided, Guaido has every bit as much of a claim to the presidency as Maduro claims to have, and long has. The text should stand. The legitimacy of Juan Guiado’s claim to acting president is as well established as is the illegitimacy of Maduro’s claim to the presidency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The legitimacy or right of Guaido's claim is not relevant to whether he is president or not. He could be completely deserving and Maduro completely undeserving, but it wouldn't change the reality that reliable sources only consider Maduro president and not Guaido. They consider Guaido to be the opposite of president; opposition leader. The article should definitely reflect Guaido's claim and the support it has because reliable sources do show that Guaido makes that claim, but that's not the same as him actually being president in any capacity. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

My 2 cents: This article makes Wikipedia look stupid, or worse: silly.

Ok, this has been discussed multiple times befor, and I don't expect the pro-Guaidó editors to step down any time soon. Just my 2 cents: Denoting Guaidó as "Acting President of Venezuela" looks super-silly to most of the world.

"Acting", where?? lol, Not in Venezuela, for sure.

Keep dreaming; but for the great majority of the world, this looks ....just silly, Huldra (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

On the recent RfC

I just wanted to note that even if the RfC reaches the conclusion that current coverage do not refer to Guaidó as president, the fact remains that they once did. This would bring an issue that would arguably be solved by adding an end date to its period of recognition, which in that case would bring the question of TOOSOON. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Is Juan Guaido still interim president of Venezuela?

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

---

Do the balance of current reliable sources assert that Guaido is "interim President of Venezuela"? --David Tornheim (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• No per Talk:Juan_Guaidó#Juan_Guaido_is_not_the_President;_Maduro_is. (permalink), particularly my and Onetwothreeip's comments, and Chetsford's comments in this RfC. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• No, patently ridiculous to call him such. Maybe Maduro stole the election in 2018; maybe he didn't. Either way, unless (perhaps until) American boots hit the ground to install him as president, or Maduro folds for some inconceivable reason, it's absurd to call him an "interim" president in anything but wishful thinking. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• No, even foreign authorities and media outlets that used to name him as interim President don't do it anymore. MarioGom (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, it doesn't matter that Guaidó doesn't hold the de facto power in Venezuela the dispute should still be on-going as there still is some unresolved issues and there is not an international consensus. The US senate issued a statement along several EU Parliament heads calling Guaidó Interim president, Maduro's claim to presidency is based on the Sham_election of May 2018. Maduro holds the de facto power and he is the de facto president and should be emphasized as such, most of his power is inside Venezuela, but Guaidó still has some influence outside of it, example is the Venezuela gold in UK banks. --HighDeFing (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• No Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about real things in the real world. We're not here to chronicle some guy's role-playing game. Chetsford (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes: Current reliable sources have continued referring to Guaidó as interim president (or acting) as recently as this year (which is the core question of the RfC and have not been brought up by the !votes so far). To name some examples: Americas Quarterly (14-04-2021), Miami Herald (12-05-2021) Yahoo News (09-05-2021), ABC (06-04-2021), Infobae (12-07-2021), NTN24 (07-09-2021) (international outlets, some of them mentioned in the talk page); The White House (05-03-2021), the Lima Group (05-01-2021) and the European Parliament (21-01-2021) (primary sources); Tal Cual (13-01-2021), Runrunes (13-08-2021), El Pitazo (03-09-2021), Efecto Cocuyo (16-06-2021), El Nacional (21-08-2021), La Patilla (15-09-2021), Caraota Digital (17-05-2021) (local sources that reflect the weight of the issue on the country, WP:VENRS can be consulted for reference).

In short, all of this shows this is not merely a fringe position, and per the neutral point of view policy, it should be reflected in the article accordingly. I'm hoping to participate in the discussion further later. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Current reliable sources such as the White House and the National Review (not Yahoo)? Really? Additionally, the Miami Herald article you linked says the opposite of what you are claiming it says: Guaidó’s more lenient tone comes as he struggles to regain the momentum he generated after declaring himself the nation’s interim president in 2019. The other English language source (I can't read Spanish) is from Americas Quarterly, which appears to be a small magazine that only publishes opinion (see a random article of theirs, hard to imagine they're a reliable source). It strains credulity here to believe that misrepresenting sources or quoting the White House as a reliable source for statements of fact about foreign political offices is a good faith attempt at trying to evaluate WP:WEIGHT in reliable sources (though I only looked at the English ones) – if Guaido being the interim president was not a WP:FRINGE claim it shouldn't take such incredible lengths to reach like this to find evidence of it in reliable sources. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

You have disputed the reliability of only 4 sources out of the 16 that I offered. I focused on offering more Spanish sources because they're used plentifully in this page and related ones, as well as per WP:GLOBAL. And yes, the White House, for instance, is a reliable source to quote the United States' foreign policy, which is why I made the clarification that it was a primary source, but you haven't made any comments regarding the remaining two: the Lima Group and the European Parliament. Here is another one by the Organization of American States.

A noteworthy point that was made in the article's talk page is that even cited sources that do not refer to Guaidó as interim president in an editorial voice do recognize the claim and that there is an ongoing dispute (namely Reuters, Aljazeera and Times of India, for example). An important issue to consider is how much this treatment in coverage has change in the last two years; back then, plenty of sources referred to Guaidó only as "opposition leader", while mentioning that he was recognized by some countries and organizations. If this RfC was focused on removing the "contested" label from the infobox, it would be understandable, but this is not the case.

My intention is not to change your position, while that I fully understand as well as others', nor to make this discussion longer than it should. In any case, however, I thought it was important to make these clarifications and comments. Best regards. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• No First he claims to be "Acting President of Venezuela," which is a title in the constitution, not the "interim president." The convention in reliable sources is - rightly or wrongly - to recognize the person who is in control. This has a basis in public international law. People in occupied territories are subject to the laws of the occupiers, not of the legitimate rulers. TFD (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
• No, the claim that Guaido is interim or acting president is just that, a claim. Reliable sources do not consider him the interim president or acting president, they only report that Guaido and others claim him to be. I have debunked the claims made by the editor purporting that reliable sources support Guaido's claim, and I have shown that the highest quality international news sources do not consider Guaido to be president in any capacity. I am willing to continue demonstrating this, but at some point we have to stop being generous to the sympathies of POV editors. There is no debate among reliable sources, so there should be no debate here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
• No - I feel like I said this in a couple of other discussions on the topic, but the US Senate is not the absolute authority on who is or isn't in charge in other countries. Recent events have shown us that it's barely in charge of who the president of the United States is. The US Senate declaration which claims Guaido as acting/interim president doesn't have any more power than Haiti's claims that Taiwan is the "real" China or any number of such diplomatic back and forth. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
• No - Guaido isn't the president of Venezuela. No matter how much he & some of his supporters, think he is. GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• No, he is not regarded as an interim president by reliable sources. Idealigic (talk) 09:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• No, see below; can we end this farce? Huldra (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended discussion

• Recognition of Jerry as president of Venezuela has devolved into a WP:FRINGE belief and the days when we could bifurcate the de facto and de jure presidency of Venezuela are long gone. That said, it is true he continues to have some tangible influence such as potential control of foreign reserves and foreign property. However, "president" refers to a specific constitutional office, not the mere presence of an aspect of authority. We did not, for instance, label Dick Cheney as "Acting President of the United States" during 2001-2009 time period simply because he had an outsized influence on the U.S. Government's executive branch. If we want to describe Jerry's quasi-governmental powers as it relates to foreign property, that can be done in narrative form in the body of the article and does not demand he carry some type of imaginary or claimed title. Chetsford (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• For the sake of simplicity, I'll quote my response from the aforementioned RfC for reference:

The presidential crisis undoubely continues, as Snow explained. Its roots started even before Guaidó was declared president, and shortly after the 2018 presidential election plenty of countries rejected the results, including the European Union and the Organization of American States (OAS), not just merely the opposition candidates; truth be told an important part of Guaidó's legitimacy lies in Maduro's perceived lack thereof. To illustrate how the dispute remains ongoing, Guaidó's representative (Gustavo Tarre Briceño) is Venezuela's ambassador in the OAS, being able to intervene and vote in resolutions, and as continue doing so for two years and a half up to as recently as this Wednesday [14 July 2021]. This is clearly more than the position of just the US Congress or a fringe point of view. Until there are new presidential elections, there is a coalition government without Maduro or Guaidó or if the latter is effectively neutralized, the crisis is unlikely to end soon.

Italics were used for clarifications. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Whether there is a presidential crisis, or the status of such presidential crisis, is not relevant to whether Juan Guaido is acting/interim president of Venezeula. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

By the way, why does the infobox claim that the presidency has been disputed with Maduro since 23 January 2021? I don't get how the editor who added this (JLMJXD) arrived at this conclusion. --2A02:AB04:2AB:700:890:B121:2B3D:8473 (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I changed 2021 to 2019. --2A02:AB04:2AB:700:E501:8E78:1518:C815 (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

References

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