Talk:Supreme Tribunal of Justice (Venezuela)

Translation
Started translation! I'm thinking about changing between the "under construction" and the "in use" templates; if I don't edit in the article for more than two hours, it's safe I won't do it in the next following eight :) --Jamez42 (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinging, just in case. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

✅! --Jamez42 (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I haven't gotten to this yet :( Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  04:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries! --Jamez42 (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

"De jure" Supreme Tribunal of Justice
, Firstly, I did not at all understand your edit summary here, could you reword it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supreme_Tribunal_of_Justice_(Venezuela)&diff=921623238&oldid=921622883

The problem with using "de jure" to describe to Supreme Tribunal of Justice in exile is that de jure implies legal legitimacy. And we can not endorse one of them in Wikipedia's voice. Notrium (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Of course, what I mean is that the discussion and the RfC has now more broadly talked about other descriptions of institutions, just like "de facto" and "de jure". The lead is only a briefing of the article's content, which it already include the procedure of the appointment of both tribunals. It isn't using Wikipedia's voice, it is an accurate description of the situation. The article states why the appointment of the de facto tribunal is void, as well as how the procedure to name a replacement was carried out and following the steps accordingly. These can be read in the "2015 Justices appointment" and the "2017 appointment and Supreme Tribunal of Justice in exile" sections. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The article states why the appointment of the de facto tribunal is void. No, the article (slanted as it is) is actually quite clear that there are two different perspectives: the government's and the opposition's. It is not Wikipedia's job to decide which of these is correct. Both should be represented, and neither should be in Wikipedia's voice. Describing the opposition's perspective as the only accurate description of the situation, and not one of two different perspectives, is a big problem, and would be better-aligned with attempting to "right great wrongs" rather than building an encyclopedia. An accurate, NPOV wording would be something like "creating a TSJ separate from the Bolivarian government" without any POV qualifiers. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Ibidem:




 * And:


 * --Jamez42 (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * , again I urge you to read WP:OR and WP:NPOV at least (and all the other policy links from the RfC). But before that, could you explain what is "Camara" in the context of the National Assembly? Because the "nullifed the appointment" quote seems to be unsupported by the reference, as the National Assembly did not even issue the declaration on that day, but merely asked of the Camara to do so. Notrium (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * "Cámara" translates as "Chamber". Since the Venezuelan legislative branch is unicameral, it's clearly synonymous to the Assembly. If that's not enough, the article continues by explaining that it was argued that the requisites of these justices were not met. The title confirms this: "NA (National Assembly) approves to nullify the justices appointment". --Jamez42 (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The article says On 12 July 2017, Ombudsman Tarek Saab, head of the Moral Council of Venezuela, said that the call for new magistrates would not be officially recognized by the Bolivarian government and that the magistrates already appointed by the lame duck Bolivarian National Assembly would instead continue to be recognized.[82] Despite the rejection of recognition by the Bolivarian government, the opposition-led National Assembly then voted 33 magistrates into office on 21 July 2017, creating a de jure Supreme Tribunal of Justice separate from the Bolivarian government. The opposition's appointment of 33 magistrates was not recognized by the Bolivarian government which means that it is not de jure from all perspectives, only from the opposition's perspective. What you are proposing to do is to implicitly endorse the opposition view and reject the government view, contrary to WP:IMPARTIAL, which states that: Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. If you would like to engage in this dispute I suggest you take it somewhere other than Wikipedia. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * , On another note, I really do not understand why do you think the RfC is about "de jure", as that term has not even been mentioned on that talk page. Are you perhaps thinking of another RfC? Notrium (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's start over. Prodavinci, whose source is included in the article, describes the following violations in the lame duck Assembly appointment:

The analysis further explains why they are violations:

The 2015 appointment violated the Constitution, Organic Law of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice and the National Assembly Internal and Debate Rules. The article is simply describing this. Has the government argued that these actions were not violations? Has the government provided justifications for these actions? No, it has not. If you know about any statement or reference referring to this, please provide them per WP:VER. There's no need to be aggressive and suggesting I should not be in Wikipedia. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * First, thanks for pointing out that this blog post is cited uncritically in our article. This is a big problem; it should be attributed. Otherwise I don't really see any relevance to the actual discussion, above, which is about whether we should not refer to the TSJ in exile as de jure. My view is that we should not. There are two perspectives here: the government does not view the TSJ in exile as de jure. We know this because they did not recognize the appointment of the TSJ in exile, as outlined in the article already. The opposition views the TSJ in exile as de jure, again as outlined in the article already. Because the two sides do not agree, we should not be referring to either as de jure based on Wikipedia policy (specifically WP:IMPARTIAL, which states that Wikipedia summarizes disputes, not engages in them). My proposal to resolve this is very simple. The text creating a de jure Supreme Tribunal of Justice separate from the Bolivarian government should be changed to creating another Supreme Tribunal of Justice, separate from the Bolivarian government (including on other related articles, which currently use similar wording). If you disagree with this proposal, can you please explain why you think we should ignore WP:IMPARTIAL in this instance and take the side of the opposition as fact? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC about applying the "pro-Maduro" label to Venezuela's institutions (eg., the Supreme Tribunal of Justice)
Please take a look at the following RfC, wherein we discuss whether applying the label "pro-Maduro" to certain Venezela's institutions/branches of government violates WP:OR (possibly including WP:SYNTH policies, and whether it is neutral. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Responses_to_the_2019_Venezuelan_presidential_crisis#RfC:_Should_Venezuelan_crisis-related_articles_use_terms_like_'pro-Maduro',_and,_if_not,_what_alternatives_can_be_used? Notrium (talk) 09:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

2002 coup d'etat
This section was unreadable to me, because I don't speak Spanish. I have added parenthesized auto-translations, but I can't speak to their correctness.

The meat of this section is quotations in Spanish; I would argue that these are useless in English Wikipedia, and should be replaced either with quotations from a reliable (English language) source, or a paraphrasing in English of the original Spanish sources. I'm not going to delete the Spanish quotations, because I don't know how good the autotranslations are. In particular, I don't think my auto-translator knows what "Pusieron la plasta" means (I certainly don't).

I don't think this revision with translations is any better; I still can't work out what the story is. I think the entire section should be replaced with a properly-sourced English narrative account, instead of comprising maily quotes from political statements and legal documents. I think the section as it stands is a cop-out - it's important, which is why it's there, but despite its density it conveys little information.

MrDemeanour (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)