Talk:2020 Venezuelan National Assembly Delegated Committee election

Session
Ongoing: Cantv bloquea las redes sociales para censurar sesión de la Asamblea Nacional, block of social media reported by Netblocks. Journalists entry to the National Assembly is being blocked. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Diputado suplente José Sánchez “Mazuco” fue operado de emergencia, alternate deputy José Sánchez Mazuco had to be operated and will not attend to today's vote. According to the opposition, Operation Scorpion consists not only in bribes to vote against or abstain, but also to prevent a quorum in the Assembly. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, any chance you can access this Washington Post article that doesn't like my browser (Post likes to block browsers that have adblocks, so I can't). Kingsif (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! Just managed to access the source, I'll copy it here so it will be available to other editors:



Apparently the National Guard not only blocked the entry of many journalists but also several opposition deputies, including Juan Guaidó, and those who did enter were denied the exit afterwards. The pro-government lawmakers would have voted for Luis Parra as the new President of the National Assembly, one of the deputies involved in Armando.info's corruption investigstion and expelled from his party.

Editors that understand Spanish can follow VPItv's livestream:, Guaidó is expected to give declarations in short, but VivoPlay is following the situation as well.

Lastly, however, we should also expect third sources to give a summary of today's events. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The BBC (on the UK home and Mundo) are covering it, too. Kingsif (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, do we have a video of Guaidó trying to climb over the fence with a creative commons license? --Jamez42 (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No commons videos on youtube, there might be on a VOA page. Kingsif (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Changing the infobox
You changed things without a source and said to look at the discussion at es.Wikipedia. Not only could I not find such discussion (certainly not on the talk page of the equivalent article), but it doesn't necessarily matter. You can start a discussion on en.Wikipedia with the same argument, but it could go a different way. And that would just be how it goes, even if that seems counter-intuitive to you. Another editor has reverted and added a hidden note to not change it again. Kingsif (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Parra is not the President of the National Assembly. Please stop reverting my edits without reason. Tropoplus (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * According to him, and Maduro, he is. All reliable sources say there's a dispute. If you find me multiple RS's saying with certainty that Guaidó is 100% definitely still the only one claiming this title, add them to the article. Until then, I will note that I had only reverted your edit twice, once long before you replied here and again just now - other editors are seeing it as disruptive, too, and you are now edit warring. If nothing else, it's clear that the 'disputed' version (nobody is it all saying Parra is the president, but that he and Guaidó claim it) is agreed upon by multiple editors and so forms a consensus that should remain until you can prove it should be changed. Consider this your second warning for disruptive editing from me, third including one from . Kingsif (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Votes/deputies
Journalist Adriana Núñez published the images of reportedly the deputies needed for Guaidó to have a quorum, but I would like a source with higher quality to publish the information. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have seen an AP piece that says that this tally was not publicly published, I hope we can find another corroborating article.--MaoGo (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I found one in El Nacional --MaoGo (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks amazing :) I wonder if the text could be copied directly from the file, but I think I'll try later. I think it'd be good to add a table of the voted divided by deputy or party. Cheers! --Jamez42 (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As an "election" article a list/graph as you propose would be appropriate. Tell me if I can help somehow, maybe there is a software out there to extract that information. If not, I am sure that Efecto Cocuyo, Prodavinci and other media may do some infographics soon. --MaoGo (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Possibly. I'll get some rest now. If there's a way to extract the info automatically, or if it is available elsewhere, feel free to do it. The Spanish Wikipedia has a list of the deputies that is constantly updated (IV Legislatura de la Asamblea Nacional de Venezuela). Otherwise, let me know to see if the work can be distributed, since I'm expecting it to be time consuming. Best wishes. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Before I forget, the PDF can be uploaded to Commons since the Venezuelan copyright law established that works by government bodies are in the public domain. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

"2020 Venezuelan legislative crisis"
Apparently based on the presidential crisis article, an article named "2020 Venezuelan legislative crisis" was created in the Spanish Wikipedia. Further disputes, such as access blocks after 5 January and the requirements to start sessions, could be included here. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that the article is not created in English until we see if there would be a new outcome this week.--MaoGo (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)r
 * WP:TOOSOON I agree. Guaidó just entered to the National Assembly for today's session. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And the electricity supply was cut off the Legislative Palace. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * EN VIVO - Diputados de la junta directiva de Guaidó reclaman su ingreso a la AN - VPITv livestream.
 * We can add an aftermath section to add Guaidó leaving the party and Guaidó reentering parliament (and whatever comes next).--MaoGo (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought about starting an Aftermatch section including international implications, but it would be completely appropriate given today's events. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The article has been merged with the presidential crisis article in the Spanish Wikipedia. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Reactions
I added more statements to the Reactions section, mostly based on a news feed, but I understand if it is needed to remove some of them, specially those governments included in the Lima Group. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Satire websites?
I tagged this content as WP:UNDUE:

It's not clear to me why this piece of satire is relevant or due. Has it been mentioned in any reliable sources? Otherwise it should be removed. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * In WP:VENRS the WikiProject has determined that El Chigüire Bipolar could be used with attribution and as a source to show "public/popular reactions", as it was once on in the Detention of Juan Requesens article. I see that it has apparently been removed, and if other editors agree the inline can be removed. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say it is pointless.--MaoGo (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * There are a number of issues with the list at WP:VENRS, including that CEPR is listed as "generally unreliable" when the RfC linked there actually found "no consensus". In any case, I don't think satire sources should be included unless the notability of the story in question is established. Articles about US politics don't include the Onion unless other sources have made clear that it is relevant and due. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You can start discussions on that page; as I wrote, the RfC for the source in general was no consensus, but even the closing statement acknowledged there were political considerations, and the arguments (even not counting mine) sway to not being used for issues on LatAm - also note that El Chigüire Bipolar is different to the Onion in quite a big way: the Onion often satirises clickbait news articles, so its articles are rarely in relation to current events (though there's a lot on Trump), whereas ECB reports on what's actually happening in a satirical way. But in this case, I don't see the importance of the ECB.
 * But yes, if you want to start discussions at WP:VENRS or the Wikiproject about sources, as long as you're open to views you may disagree with (i.e. circular arguments are tedious, comment to everyone), you can. Kingsif (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed. As for WP:VENRS, CEPR was changed to "No consensus" in its moment and you're free to object to any of the considerations if you wish. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * would we be able to take a discussion there? If anything, we could establish a consensus within the Wikiproject for all the current 'no consensus' articles. There's enough active WP:Venezuela editors to get a discussion going. I think we may also benefit from making a statement saying 'this is just sources being used for Venezuela topics, reliability can be different elsewhere' (e.g. ECB can be used in certain ways for Venezuela topics, but probably shouldn't be used anywhere else) bold in the opening? The essay banner is clear on this, but we can always reinforce that second part especially. Kingsif (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I like the idea. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I think moving it to the "no consensus" section is sufficient, at least IMO. I'll watch the page to be aware of any future discussions. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Everything seems to be in position - ECB still in the unreliable; if you do have any ideas on how to word the entry for it to make appropriate uses clear, please mention them! Kingsif (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

"Leadership"
This press release by the European Union describes the Assembly's "leadership" as the Board of Directors. I translated the "directiva" as "leadership" because I didn't know about a better term, but there should be plenty of references in English using different terms. Should the term be changed in the article? --Jamez42 (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If it only concerns the opening paragraph you may change it, I guess for the rest it is ok.--MaoGo (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

now that we have a translation, shouldn't the title of the article be changed also?: 2020 Venezuelan National Assembly Board of Directors election--MaoGo (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Al Jazzera, Buenos Aires Times and some others are also using the term. AP and Reuters just evade the term using "leadership".--MaoGo (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Forget what I said, "junta directiva" is different from the "comisión delegada".--MaoGo (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Timeline and infobox
Another article about the timeline and fact check of the events by Efecto Cocuyo, a bit more comprehensive than El Pitazo's already included in the article. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * you might know better, do you know if Parra was a possible candidate before the police barricades on 5 January? I think that the infobox might be misleading on that aspect, but I would not know if there is a better alternative.--MaoGo (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, Parra's candidacy was completely unknown to the public before the day of the election. Parra the rest of the deputies were only known for being expelled from their party, for Armando.info's investigation and for accepting or offering bribes. In turn, they also attacked Guaidó in several ways (not all of them, but most), citing the irregularities of Cúcuta and that there was "unrest" in the Assembly. However, nothing at all suggested that they would be endorsed as candidates. The only expectations were to prevent Guaidó for having enough votes or to break the quorum for the vote. I have removed him from the infobox because of this reason, there might be a better way to reflect it. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think removing Parra from the infobox is needlessly confusing, and have reverted. There are two candidates with two competing claims, and there's no reason not to include one in the infobox. If there is concern about whether he was a legitimate candidate that can be conveyed in the text. Electing a speaker or similar role in a parliamentary system is not the same thing as a presidential election, and there typically do not need to be campaigns, public announcements, registration as a candidate, etc. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But as MaoGo mentioned, having Parra it's just as confusing, since Parra's candidacy was not announced until the day of the election. Besides, this competing claim is already expressed in the "Disputed between Luis Parra and Juan Guaido" subtitle. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Why does his candidacy having been announced on the day of the election make him not a candidate in the election? You would have a point if the article was "lead-up to the 2020 Venezuelan etc Election", but candidacy being announced later doesn't make it invalid, unless there was an actual legal cutoff date which Parra missed—was there? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The legality about the candidacy is not in question, but rather its timing, as well as if the infobox reflects this accurately. If we were to talk about the legality of the candidacy, it would be the legality of the session itself, whose quorum is part of the dispute and should have been moderated by Guaidó. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess what I don't understand is why you think putting him in the box as one of the candidates suggests that his candidacy was widely known to the public prior to the election. I think putting him in that box just says that he was a candidate, which he was. The infobox doesn't make any reference to timing or dates or anything, so I don't see why putting him there would imply that he had announced his candidacy earlier or anything. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand your point. Just for the record, it is MaoGo's concern and I share it. In any case, an alternative might come up. I want to discuss in depth the situation, but it'll take me time to write. I'll leave it here when I do. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Could you please explain the purpose of the note you added here? Why is it important for there to be a note in the infobox stating that Guaidó was the only candidate announced in advance? Are there any reliable sources talking about this? I'm not seeing any evidence that this is WP:DUE. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was busy yesterday it is now that I am able to answer. I do not know if removing Parra as a candidate is adequate, there was (apparently) some (disputed) election in the parliament that day. I was trying to find a parameter in the infobox that could make more clear that Parra was undisclosed previous to the session. I could not find it. Meanwhile, a note seemed to me the best way to detail this. If the problem is a source, I would try to look for one. Cmonghost could you explain why is it undue? I hope that you understand this was not an ordinary election. Jamez do you have any idea on how are candidates chosen? can any deputy be elected that day?--MaoGo (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is a source: Luis Parra ... announced his surprise candidacy against Guaidó via Twitter on Sunday morning (WaPo). Now it is to me clear that the candidate was unannounced until 5 January.--MaoGo (talk) 11:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is the tweet for time comparison. --MaoGo (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Parra was a surprise candidate and the Washington Post source (and others) support this.ZiaLater ( talk ) 11:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thank you for your comments. The election of the candidates is established in Article 7 and 8 of the Internal and Debates Rules of the National Assembly:




 * The candidate needs to be postulated, their postulation includes a presentation, and the candidate needs the approval of 84 deputies, half plus one of the deputies. Of course, in order to do that you need to start the session with the same number of deputies present, and the president of the Assembly, Guaidó, is the moderator. This ABC article also goes in depth about the details: ¿Cuál es el procedimiento para la elección de la Junta Directiva de la Asamblea Nacional de Venezuela?: Habiendo quórum, el Presidente saliente dirigirá el debate para la elección de la nueva JD. En su ausencia lo debe suplir el primer vicepresidente y en ausencia de éste, el segundo vicepresidente. Si no está presente ninguno y existe el quórum (mayoría absoluta de los miembros) los diputados elegirán de entre ellos a un director del debate. (Art. 11 RIyD) According to Article 11 of the Internal and Debate Rules, if the president is absent, the first vice president replaces them (Edgar Zambrano), and if they are also absent, they are replaced by the second vice president (Stalin González). If none of them are present and there is a quorum, the deputies must elect among them a debate moderator. In the state-own Venezolana de Televisión feed of Parra's proclamation, the process and the vote cannot be easily be seen:


 * Diputados chavistas eligen a Luis Parra como presidente de la AN sin la presencia de Juan Guaidó - VIVO play
 * Luis Parra es juramentado presidente de la Asamblea Nacional de Venezuela en sustitución de Guaidó - VTV
 * What I can say is that it is very different from the session directed later by Guaidó. Best regards, --Jamez42 (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Surely the session was unusual according to the sources. On one hand I wanted to see if candidates needed to be announced previously or under certain circumstances, which does not seem to be the case. In that case Parra should stay in the infobox (I will still add some information in the main text). On the other hand we could add note to include that Guaidó was not present (or Parra was not present in Guaidó's session), and that there was (allegedly) no quorum and others conflicting points, but I guess that the text already does that.--MaoGo (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Seing that there are apparently three editors, including me, that believe that this fact should be shown in the infobox, I have added the note next to Parra saying Parra announced his candidacy by surprise the day of the election., but its content is open to discussion. I'm still writing a thread to talk about the inclusion of the dispute per se in the infoboxes. I don't think it will be today, but I will probably start it here. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Believing that something should be shown in the infobox is not the same as demonstrating that it actually belongs there. The fact that Parra was a surprise candidate is now detailed in the text (thanks ) and I am not disputing it. Why does it also need to clutter the infobox? No one has explained this yet. If the infobox doesn't have a parameter for "announcement date" or similar, we don't need to cram it into an efn. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that by stating that this change should be reflected in the box is an attempt to demonstrate it. We could agree that it is a least drastic change than removing him from the infobox. There are other infoboxes related to the issue that also include notes, such as the next parliamentary election and the Assembly's main article, where I have added clarifications regarding Francisco Torrealba's condition as minority leader. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's less drastic, but it's needless clutter, and I think there should be a motivation for it if it's to be included. As for the WP:OTHER note about Torrealba, the text of it is a little confusing, but it seems to be indicating that Torrealba is not considered a legitimate deputy by the opposition, but is considered one by PSUV. I'm honestly not sure if that's necessary either, but it seems far more important than "the candidate did not announce until the day of the election". In Torrealba's case, it's a dispute that has bearing on whether he is a legitimate legislator. In Parra's case, it's just a detail about when he announced that has no bearing on whether his candidacy is legitimate or not. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am with Cmonghost on this one, legally any candidate could have been announced that day, even Óscar Figuera could be in the infobox if we insisted (but we are not doing that because the citations makes it clear that is was a joke) . The disputed result seems ok enough for me. Anyway this conversation was useful to understand better the legality of his candidacy (not the result). --MaoGo (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Reading this, I think that if Parra is included in the infobox, some explanation that he emerged at the very last second (i.e. announced himself as a candidate for the first time when already inside the Assembly on election day) is needed. The implications and actual definitions of the term 'candidate', especially for Western readers, are much greater than simply 'was an option to vote for' - to put oneself forward as a candidate equates to a longer process in most actual definitions now, but even without that, it suggests a long campaign and endorsements, etc. Parra had none of these and announced his candidacy out of nowhere at a moment when voting should have already happened and effectively placing himself as the only one to vote for. Not all of this needs to be in the infobox, obviously, but because of the disparity between expectation and reality, something should say "He wasn't a candidate like you expect". As election articles usually encompass a lot of the campaigning and run-up as well as the results, and in those articles (this one has a lot of coverage about the day's events and after, which Parra was heavily involved with) it may be inappropriate to have Parra in the infobox as he wasn't involved. Kingsif (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Per the WaPo source, he announced his candidacy the day of the vote, but I'm not seeing any evidence that he announced when voting should have already happened. Do you have a link for that? As for what it means to be a candidate, this kind of procedure is not at all unusual for electing a parliamentary leader. For example, in Canada every MP who doesn't explicitly withdraw by 6pm the day before is on the ballot for speaker, and there's no requirement for a public announcement, a long campaign, or anything of that nature. We should not conflate this kind of election, in which legislators elect a leader from within their own ranks, with public elections in which members of the general public vote. They're not the same thing and they don't have the same procedures. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Diosdado

 * Cabello avisa de que la Asamblea Constituyente hará lo necesario para "restablecer la paz" en el Parlamento - Europapress (Cabello warns that the Constituent Assembly will do what's necessary to "restore the peace" in the Assembly) --Jamez42 (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Tally of votes of Parra
AN members must deliver a tally (list of votes of each deputy in the election) the same day of the election. For what I have seen, when asked about the tally, Parra seems to give a different version in each interview. Guaido's parliament delivered their concerns to the TSJ, and the TSJ seems to be asking for the tally (Efecto Cocuyo). I am waiting for a definite statement on this situation, but I think something might be written about it.--MaoGo (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

"Announced"
Hi! I noticed that in your last edit you added the definition of "announced" to reelection. I understand this is in order to improve neutrality and that the legitimacy of Guaidó's reelection might be questioned, but I wanted to ask if you're disputing that the vote itself took place. The reliable sources establish that it did, and the session was streamed by VPITv, where the vote was done nominally and each one of the deputies that voted for Guaidó were named. I personally think that we should avoid the word "announced" per WP:ALLEGED, but I would like to know if there's another reason to keep it. Many thanks beforehand. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The "announced" is unnecessary as were are just describing how each foreign ministry saw the events.--MaoGo (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi! I wasn't disputing that the vote took place at all, the point of the edit was simply to avoid wikipedia making any statements as to wether or not he was reelected (i.e. is now officially the president of the assembly), as that is the subject in dispute. I originally thought of placing "reelected" in quotation marks, but that took me as a bit too eerily similar to scare quotes and I was afraid it might swing the POV in the opposite direction, by replacing legitimization with delegitimization - which I also didn't want. I'd be happy to hear of alternatives, though! Goodposts (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would suggest quotes too if it wasn't for WP:SCAREQUOTES, but I have to agree that the word might be redundant being included in the political declarations. Thoughts? --Jamez42 (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Another problem with 'announced' is that it sounds as if the ministers were congratulating Guaidó for an election that is in the future and has not taken place yet.--MaoGo (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed the adjective because of the reasons explained above. However, discussion on a possible way to improve neutrality should be in order. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, what about single quotation marks - 'reelection' as opposed to reelection or "reelection". That ought to get around scarequote issues, and considering the fact that they would be used to mark a part of a quoted statement, ought not to be undue. Goodposts (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To me, one or two quotation marks does not make a difference. One way to work around this, it is quote what the speakers actually said about it.--MaoGo (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Infobox subtitles and normalization
Hi. This thread is based on one started in the Spanish Wikipedia. I would like to start it to begin a discussion and have a consensus to decide which is the best format to reflect the recent events on 5 and 7 January.

I understand that the Venezuelan presidential crisis is being used as precedent to establish a convention in several of the articles, using the "Disputed with" and "Disputed between" subtitles in the articles infoboxes. However, I want to show that the are substantial differences between both situations and, as such, should not be used.

I would start explaining the factores of the presidential crisis:

Let's compare now the dispute between Guaidó and Parra:

There is an unbalance between the claimancies between Guaidó and Parra and it may be WP:TOOSOON to include the dispute in the infoboxes. Something similar happened in 2019, when Guaidó announced in a rally on 11 January that he would assume executive responsabilities, but I wasn't until 23 January that he declared himself as president.

The Supreme Tribunal of Justice asked Parra to provide 5 January session's act, and in the following sessions of the National Assembly should have a quorum to start. Since the number of deputies needed for a quorum is the same as the ones needed to elect the president of the Assembly, the effective president of the National Assembly should be the one presiding over these sessions.

This situation is similar to the Supreme Tribunal justices. Their appointment in 2015 was seen as irregular and unlawful by the opposition and they appointed new justices in 2017, who in turn can't exercise their role at full extent. Yet, this is not reflected in the Maikel Moreno's article, the chief justice, or the main Supreme Tribunal of Justice (Venezuela) article, except for a "about" template and a description in the content in the case of the latter.

Since 7 January, reliable source have not referred to Parra as president of the National Assembly (Bloomberg, Miami Herald, Caracas Chronicles), as well as Spanish ones (BBC, El País, France24, Infobae, El Universal, Runrun.es).

For these reason I propose withdrawing the subtitles from the infoboxes in the articles where this dispute is shown, although alternatives such as footnotes could be considered and added, and to specify as detailed as possible the situation in the content of the article. This includes the following articles:


 * 2020 Venezuelan National Assembly Delegated Committee election
 * National Assembly (Venezuela)
 * President of the National Assembly of Venezuela
 * Juan Guaidó
 * Luis Parra


 * Too long; didn't read:
 * Guaidó has (arguably) more/better arguments to support his claim.
 * The control of the National Assembly is not has clear as the power struggle in the presidential crisis, and Guaidó retook control of the Assembly during his last session.
 * There are nearly no changes in international recognition, except for Russia, and on the contrary regional organizations and countries have confirmed their recognition of Guaidó.
 * It may be WP:TOOSOON to use the subtitles
 * Reliable sources have not referred to Parra as contested president of the Assembly after 7 January. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment With this discussion, WP:NPOV and WP:RS in mind, the decision should probably be based in how reliable sources describe the situation and, furthermore, should have a strong consensus from editors. Kingsif (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I oppose this proposal to have Wikipedia take one side in this dispute. Per WP:IMPARTIAL, Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. Per WP:OR, it is not up to us to decide who has more or better arguments to support their claim. WP:TOOSOON is an essay, not policy (and is about notability, not article content), but I would argue that it cuts the opposite way: it is far too soon for us to select one candidate to present as the president of the assembly when the dispute is still ongoing. When or if reliable non-opinion sources refer to Guaidó or Parra as the president of the assembly, in their own voices, then we can revisit the issue. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:OR does not apply to talk pages. You can consult the sources provided if you wish. One of my concerns, because of the reasons explained above, is precisely that a WP:FALSEBALANCE is created.--Jamez42 (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of that. However, your proposal is to change article content based in part on who has more or better arguments to support their claim. Per WP:OR, article content needs to be based on reliable sources, not on Wikipedia editors' personal judgements. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not quite, almost everything that I mentioned is already sourced in the related articles, and not only legitimacy arguments are included, but events such as the sessions of the Assembly and the position of other countries. My intention is to analyze the due weight of these subtitles, but any other outcome or proposal is just as valid. If it helps, in the Spanish Wikipedia alternate subtitles for the infoboxes have also been proposed. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Our policy on WP:SYNTHESIS prohibits Wikipedia editors from amalgamating and interpreting multiple sources to make a claim that is not explicitly made in the sources. As I said above: when or if reliable non-opinion sources refer to Guaidó or Parra as the president of the assembly, in their own voices, then we can revisit the issue. Until then, we need to describe the dispute, not take a side in it. That means representing the dispute in the infobox. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I oppose the proposal - largely based on the reasoning Cmonghost already laid out. Arguing over who is the "legitimate" President of the Assembly is WP:OR - not something that ought to be on wikipedia. The article page is not the place to try and argument which side has "higher legitimacy". WP:RS are still referring to a duality of claims to the post. Furthermore, the TSJ's ruling also refrains from explicitly recognizing either side and if anything, only reinforces the view that there are two competing claims. In addition, if the TSJ follows the precedent that it has set during it's recent tenure, there is a high probability that it will rule against Guaido. Presently, a hyperlink to this article is inserted in each mention of the dispute, which allows readers to read up on what both sides are claiming and come to their own conclusions on which is the 'legitimate' president, if they even believe there is one at all. Goodposts (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Just for the record, one of the issues is not deciding who is the legitimate president but rather on the balance of the information (WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:UNDUE). My question would be if to follow consistently the conditions of precendent, the presidential crisis, or if we should not wait for the dispute to be develop further from how it currently is. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel as though we've had this conversation before. Anyway - RS are saying that there are two competing claims, which is the reason those articles are written the way they are. Did Parra have a quorum? Was Guaido's parallel vote legitimate? Does it matter who the int'l community, or Maduro for that matter, recognize as the chairman of the AN? It really isn't up to us to decide. On the same breath, couldn't your argument be used to remove Guaido's claim to the Presidency of Venezuela as a whole? After all - up until 2020 all but one of Venezuela's institutions (the AN) recognized Maduro, and not Guaido, as Venezuela's President. That one institution is now in a position of dispute itself. Add to it the fact that Maduro is currently the one exercising the actual de facto power as President, and you could make the same case that adding a subtitle to the Venezuelan presidency that it is in dispute with Guaido is also WP:UNDUE. So if we go by that logic, we're reopening that whole can of worms. Goodposts (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Update As stated in the article, this week Guaidó presided the session of the National Assembly in El Hatillo, Caracas, not in the Legislative Palace, but Parra seems to have not started another session this week. This means that the de facto aspect that I mentioned is unclear once again. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of confusion at the moment, you are correct. I'm assuming the events are going to start unfolding faster after we see both Parra's response to the TSJ's order for the proof of the tally, the TSJ's ruling on the matter, and the opposition's reponse to the TSJ's ruling. Goodposts (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment This is the most recent local news report on the situation. I'm only leaving it here because of what I said about RS coverage above - scrutinize it and the source if you want. Theoretically, we could all choose which sources we see as RS and compile all their most recent views, rather than debate over OR. Kingsif (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't use El Nacional in this case - not only is it an opposition newspaper, it was the newspaper which voluntarily provided the venue which hosted Guaido's inauguration - leading to the publication having a 'horse in the race' in this case, which dramatically undermines it's authority on the subject. A pro-Parra equivalent would be along the lines of This TeleSUR article, and that would probably get objected to on the same grounds. Goodposts (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * El Nacional shoudn't be dismissed right away as an opposition newspaper, despite its history, and it still has important reliability. The main problem with El Nacional is that its format is now limited to only publishing news (I can't recall the name of the format at the moment).
 * The news is based on the press conference held by the MUD (EN VIVO - Pronunciamiento de los diputados de la Unidad Democrática), where they declared further about the dispute. As such there are many other outlets that cover the same news: Versión Final, NTN24, EVTV Miami, Efecto Cocuyo. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not just because it's an opposition newspaper, although that also doesn't help. It's that they allowed one of the candidates in the dispute to use their offices in order to stake his claim - which clearly shows which side they are on. This isn't to say it couldn't be used at all - it could still be used to cite statements made by Guaido or the pro-Guaido sector of the opposition, but using it to assertain facts in relation to this crisis would probably violate WP:NPOV, if not also backed by neutral sources (or sources with the opposite bias). For example, some of my main work on Wikipedia has to do with Syria. A big problem with the coverage of the ongoing civil war is the fact that unbiased sources very rarely exist on the ground. For that reason, we often use Al-Masdar News, which supports the Syrian Government, to balance out the SOHR sources, which oppose it. We use American military sources to balance out Turkish ones on Kurdish issues. Of course, many of these sources publish factual information, but the coupling of divergent viewpoints is a necessity when trying to avoid the loaded language that some of these publications use in their articles. Goodposts (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * While El Nacional is one of the more internationally recognised newspapers from Venezuela, Goodposts has a good explanation above of the issues with sourcing in such conflicts. I think other sources have also been provided now, one (Versión Final) a state source, so some combination could be used. Kingsif (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * All that considered, my main point is that if El Nacional has reported it, almost definitely another outlet will have too and better. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Reuters investigation
Retuers investigation on Operacion Alacran --MaoGo (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)