Talk:The Carmona Decree

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]


Contents

[edit] POV and/or sources needed

These items are incomplete, unsourced, or POV:

  • initiated a parallel coup against the Legislative, Judicial, and Moral branches
    • If you're going to call reversion to legislation before Chavez a "parallel coup" you need to provide a valid, primary source for that term.
      • Very well I could not find a reference to a parallel coup (I added it for stylistic reasons) so I will replace it with "moved away from the constitutional framework"[1]
  • constitutional justification for the coup, and various new decrees.
    • Say what his justification was, and include source, otherwise article is one-sided and POV.
      • I will include the justifications that are in the same decree, you are right.
  • The country was renamed Republica de Venezuela.
    • POV, because although it says "renamed", there is still no reference anywhere in the article to the fact that this restores Venezuela's original name and how Chavez changed these and many other items -- this needs to be addressed, as this article makes it appear that the Carmona decree introduced arbitrary changes, when in fact, it was restoring things to pre-Chavez condition.
      • Remember all of this is a translation from the decree, see it yourself, but I will add "from Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela" since it is short
  • The National Assembly would be dissolved and new elections would be held no later than December 2002.
    • Again, still no reference to the fact or controversy that the National Assembly was installed under dubious circumstances. Present both sides of the story, to avoid bias and POV.
      • Here I disagree the National Asembly was freely elected and this has nothing to do with it really
  • The following individuals would be removed from their posts: members of the Supreme Court, Attorney General, Comptroler General, Ombudsman and members of the electoral board (CNE).
  • All of the 48 decrees from the Ley Habilitante will be suspended.
    • Ley Habilitante is still not explained, nor are the reasons the Carmona decree was suspending it. Again, POV.
      • This might take a while I do not want to create long winded paragraphs since all of these articles are translations, the Ley Habilitante can be made into an article
  • The Carmona Decree is generally viewed
    • "Generally viewed" are weasle words. Provide source.
      • Same source as above [2]
        • I do not find words in that source to support "generally viewed": plese point them out.
  • The oposition could no longer argue that it was a "power vacuum" being filled by the resigning president, but full control of all democratic institutions.
    • I don't know what this sentence says or means.
      • That the coup was not just the president resigning and carmona filling the void. I know you might hold that theory but it has major holes, such as why was Diosdado not made President? Why was every single government entity from local to government at the mercy of Carmona? Why were all other branches dissolved?
  • Well after the fall of the Carmona presidency there is still lingering controversy
    • Source needed. POV.
      • Ok I will use this source [3] which you deleted on Sumate (what changed?) since it is NOT venanalysis (not that it is anything wrong with it) but a reprinting.
        • It needs to be reworded from "lingering controversy" to something more along the lines of "critics say".
  • Many of them justify their signature as just validating their observation, but not agreement or endorsement, however the decree clearly asked near the end.
    • Many? Who? Where? Source?
      • Fine Chavez supporters
        • Still not fixed.
  • " Ladies and Gentlement, in order for this democratic movement to go forward, near the exit of this auditorium we ask that you sign the decree as proof of adhesion to this process."
    • Source?
      • Did you read the decree? it is linked below most of this article is a translation, if you want you can help
  • figurehead Maria Corina Machado,
    • Figurehead?
      • I will use her official title
      • "Leader" is not her official title.

No sources for most statements in the article, which tells only one side of the story. Please make sure your sources are primary, reliable sources, rather than biased, socialist ones. If you must use biased sources, then please provide balance.

  • Wikipedia has no problem with biased or socialist sources, however her own rebuttal is on the venanalysis-reprinted-but-written-by-NCR article did you read all of it?

I will not do the unkind thing of putting tags on your new article, until you have had a fair amount of time to work on these items. But, I don't think you should link to this article until it's more complete. Sandy 23:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

A month has gone by. I will tag the article as unbalanced, rather than POV, although I believe it is POV. Sandy 16:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Sandy please you have to be more specific than that you cannot just say it is not balanced and I will decree a tag, please detail why you think it is unbalanced specifically or I will remove it.Flanker 17:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
There is an entire list above, and I struck what has been done. I am reformatting it so that you may be able to read it easier: the way you originally formatted and bolded your responses makes it very hard to see what has been done and what not. I'm not sure why you've repeated text below: it's very hard to follow this page. Sandy 21:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Update Since you're linking to it from the Hugo Chávez article, it's going to need a POV tag sooner rather than later. Sandy 23:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Give me a few hours and I will see what I can do, thanks for your input.Flanker 23:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Goodness, I wouldn't put a time limit of a few hours on this amount of work ! Glad you're working on it ... Sandy 23:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
No problem it is my first article started :)Flanker 00:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather than address each issue above, overall, there is not a single, unbiased, English language source in the article. Again, you and I can read Spanish, but we're not writing an encyclopedia in Spanish. We aren't the average reader (Spanish-English bilingual), and anything newsworthy should be available somewhere in English. There is no unbiased reference for anything in this article that will serve most Wiki readers. The article is still unsourced. I'm sure it's OK to include a Spanish source now and then, but some of your article statements, if newsworthy, must be available in English. If you can fix that, then I can address the other points (above). I can't get too excited about giving up more days to work on Wiki Venezuelan articles, considering what I now know about the "dictatorship" of Wiki. And, it's hard for me to source your statements, because they reflect a viewpoint I really don't understand. I think if the article is important to you, you've got to be the one to source your work. It's kind of amazing that some of the FARC comments stated that the problems should be easy and quick to fix, when this work is anything but easy or quick. Also, my Spanish isn't good enough to plow through long legal stuff: someone on the old main article talk page offered to help with translation, but I can't remember who it was?Sandy 00:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well we could link to a google translation, I am personally offering to translate if you disagree with my translation in the slightest you are welcome to post, they are all easy to read for a legal document actually try the ARTICLES only for starters.
As for the FARC it is still rather murky but the way we ere going was really bad in the long run, a FA is not an average page (this is not a FA BTW ;) ) it has to meet more than just tit for tat like we were doing but give prose and style that is consistent, for example the current article worked on does not have a single quotation for stylistic reasons. I believe that if we work on concesus in the talk page first and later add the piece we can do much better (ex the mudslides section). Flanker 01:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Work on consensus on the talk page???? That *is* what we *were* doing, and it was all obliterated, including (against guidelines) the talk page! And *they* had no part in even participating in talk page consensus! Talk page consensus on that article was a sham (even though I agree the article was a mess, and we weren't making progress fast enough). Anyway, I'm not objecting to the document itself being in Spanish, but that you have no English-language unbiased sources which support your interpretation of and statements about the document: that is what is still needed. The article currently has some POV statements, and wording that needs to be backed up by a primary, unbiased, English-language source ... if you can get those, than we can worry about translating the actual decree. Sandy 01:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The articles are a translation, as for the other references I will keep trying to look for the BBC one in english but it is still not against policy and neither is Venanalysis, where MCM is even quoted and interviewed (short) her stance verified achieving neutrality.Flanker 02:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at the Google translation to English: it's basically unintelligible, and doesn't resemble anything related to English ... maybe you can try one of the others (there used to be something called Babel on altavista.com)? Sandy 01:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I will try babel fish but I doubt it will do better.Flanker 02:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A month has elapsed, and the article is still POV. I will tag it as unbalanced, although I believe the stronger tag should apply. Sandy 16:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV issues resolved

Most of the article is just a translation, if anything else arises please point it out.Flanker 00:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time today to re-review my entire list above, but at minimum, I saw the following when glancing at the article:

"and initiated a move away from the constitutional framework" ... explain further for balance or reference the specific wording, saying whomever claims this. Otherwise, it's incomplete and POV. They believed they were restoring the constitutional framework, which Chávez has moved away from, so you're not covering both sides.

The wording can be found in the article linked, their justification is already addressed in a new subsection.

" It dissolved the Legislative, Judicial, Electoral and Moral branches of the government." This sentence stops short, making it POV. It needs to go into the detail that they were *restoring* what previously existed.

They were not restoring what previously existed save for the name of the country, all new members would be handpicked it says so in the decree.

"On April 11, 2002, anti-Chávez and pro-Chávez demonstrators clashed at the Miraflores palace." This statement, while technically accurate, introduced POV because it's not complete. Remember, the anit-Chávez demonstrations had been going on for days. And, the way it's written, one doesn't know who the 500,000 are (pro or anti). It misleads the reader regarding the massive numbers of people protesting against Chavez for many days. One of the older versions of one of the other articles has better wording, but I can't recall where I saw it -- maybe check the current verions of Hugo Chávez?

When I wrote this article it was a few minutes before the major change in the Hugo Chavez article, as a matter of fact it is copy pasted from the Jun 10 version.

"since its power reach was more comprehensive than previously justified." Much better wording than before.

"Well after the fall of the Carmona presidency there is still lingering controversy with those that signed the decree." Since the reference for this is several years old, maybe it would be better stated in the past tense, and worded as, "After Chávez was re-instated as President, lingering controversy regarding those that signed the decree remained." Ok.

"Notable signatories of this document are Súmate leader Maria Corina Machado," But, she tells it differently, according to your reference, so that needs to be included in the article for balance. Sure.

I will try to look at the article again tomorrow, and copyedit, if I have more time. I will also search the BBC for an English-language equivalent of your reference (unless you've already done that)? Sandy 14:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have not found an english BBC version no.Flanker 18:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish sources

Forgive the anon post, but I was just perusing and had a quick note about the use of non-english sources. While I agree that when working in the english section of wikipedia it is advantageous to use english sources (for obvious reasons, no?) the issue is more complicated than that. There are many events that have happened around the world that simply have no reportage in english. Should we consider that as far as the english wiki is concerned that these events never happened? I of course support a continued search for english sources. Also, translations bring up the issue of original research, a rule I have never been comfortable with as all wiki articles represent original research. But that is a discussion for another time. Again, forgive the intrusion.≈≈≈≈

Actually It would not surprise me that at any moment the translation will be labelled as originial research, nevermind the past history of translating out of context quotes. One of the goals of Wikipedia is removing regional bias indeed.Flanker 19:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article is held to a more rigourous standard than BLP

I cannot believe the suspension of the Supreme court was deleted because the BBC article omitted it, seriously the document is right there! anyhow I added a source specifying the Supreme Court directly.Flanker 03:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Carmona_Decree_fa91.html"