Talk:2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Legal base

Please expand the section titled 'Legal base.' We must explain to our readers the logic used by the Court to make this decision. The Court simply cannot declare something just because. Its orders must have weight under the law. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  • It has held the National Assembly in contempt for some time due to its seating of 3 lawmakers that the TSJ said were elected "fraudulently". I think this is somewhere in the article? Basically the TSJ said the NA wasn't doing their job and holding up decisions (like mortaging part of PDVSAs Citgo to the Russian state oil company Rosneft) [1] [2], so they attempted to assume their powers. The reversal of the rulings occurred, but the TSJ said that the NA cannot prevent the decisions of oil deals, granting Maduro the power to make the deals despite the Assembly's previous duties of making those decisions.--ZiaLater (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The TSJ cannot hold the NA in contempt just because. It must base its holding on existing law. What regulation did the TSJ cite to justify its actions? We need reliable sources explaining this. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • To give you an example, Trump cited 8 U.S.C. 1101 and section 301 of title 3, United States Code as a basis when he issued Executive Order 13769. Under what regulation did the TSJ said (1) that the TSJ had jurisdiction over this matter and (2) that the TSJ was empowered to act in such way? Otherwise the declaration is moot since it's not based on law. Do we have any reliable sources explaining this? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
This charge of contempt happened awhile ago so it will be hard to pick it up. I'll check for you but in the rulings in the article it should say what they cited.--ZiaLater (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
So I guess it was "part of a mundane interpretation of an oil law, and it was just one sentence at the very end of a 20,000-word ruling". Ruling 155 was "in accordance with the provisions of Article 236.4, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 337 et seq. Eiusdem (see Ruling Nº 113 of 20 March 2017)" and Ruling 156 was based from "Article 33 of the Organic Hydrocarbons Law" (see article).--ZiaLater (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
That's for the part of Maduro being able to enter into ventures. What about the part of the TSJ being able to dissolve the NA? What was the basis for that? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
"As long as the dissatisfaction and invalidity of the proceedings of the National Assembly persist, this Constitutional Chamber will ensure that the parliamentary powers are exercised directly by this Chamber or by the body that it has in place to ensure the rule of law." - Ruling Nº 156
Hard to tell what the "dissatisfaction and invalidity of the proceedings" means and how it can be interpreted. Really can't be more vague than that.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
They have to cite a regulation that empowers them to do that. Is there a constitutional provision that empowers the TSJ from dissolving the NA for whatever reason? For example, the Constitution might empower the TSJ to "protect the republic" or something like that. Something so vague could be used as basis for stripping the NA from its powers. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ahnoneemoos: There are like 350 articles to the 1999 Venezuelan constitution, so.... Article 5 of the constitution states "Sovereignty resides untransferable in the people, who exercise it directly in the manner provided for in this Constitution and in the law". Some have argued that means the NA was elected into office by the people while the TSJ was chosen by the lame-duck Bolivarian NA in 2015. That's why some Venezuelans were angry that the TSJ quickly battled with the opposition-NA since it was "the people" who elected the NA.
Then there's Article 25 which is really vague: "Any act on the part of the Public Power that violates or encroaches upon the rights guaranteed by this Constitution and by law is null and void, and the public employees ordering or implementing the same shall incur criminal, civil and administrative liability, as applicable in each case, with no defense on grounds of having followed the orders of a superior", basically any law that is made (which many were made by the Bolviarian government in its over 15 years of being head of legislation) and violated by a public official, that official's actions can be made "null and void" and subject to liability.
In Ruling Nº 155, they cite Article 236.4 (The following are attributions and duties of the President* of the Republic: 4. To direct the international relations of the Republic and sign and ratify international treaties, agreements or conventions) and Article 337 (The President* of the Republic, at a meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers, shall have the power to decree states of exception. Expressly defined as such are circumstances of a social, economic, political, natural or ecological nature which seriously affect the security of the Nation, institutions and citizens*, in the face of which the powers available to cope with such events are insufficient) , as well as Ruling Nº 113 of 20 March 2017. So the National Assembly somehow had to "seriously affect the security of the Nation, institutions and citizens".
So how did the National Assembly "seriously affect the security of the Nation, institutions and citizens"? It allegedly violated Article 33 of the current Organic Hydrocarbons Law, which states "The constitution of joint ventures and the conditions that will govern the of primary activities, will require prior approval by the National Assembly ...". So, basically Venezuela is short of cash and wants to mortgage Citgo and other state companies to Russia,[1] [2] but the National Assembly disapproved of such actions. Ruling Nº 155 stated that due to order's by Maduro protected by Article 236.4 and Article 337 of the constitution and in order "to avoid a state of commotion", the TSJ agreed with Maduro's order "to exercise such international measures as it deems appropriate and necessary to safeguard the constitutional order", such as mortgaging companies for needed cash. Ruling Nº 155 was also used to counter "injustices committed daily in the international system by interventionist actions", which would be any threat to international deals (mortgages). So through Ruling Nº 155 , the TSJ interpreted the NA's refusal as being an action which would "seriously affect the security of the Nation, institutions and citizens", though it didn't say exactly how it would do so. The National Assembly argues that President Maduro "is resorting to surreptitiously selling strategic assets to weather the unprecedented crisis", often stating that the crisis is created by the Bolivarian government itself.
*exhale*--ZiaLater (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. We now need a reliable source that explains this. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Most of what I did was just WP:SYNTH if it were placed in an article like that. Most sources will just state make brief statements about the situation.--ZiaLater (talk) 05:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Article title

The opposition may call it a "self-coup", but is it neutral phrasing? Only an opinion piece is referenced in the article. I think it should be described simply as a court ruling. Everyking (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Something similar to the 1992 Peruvian constitutional crisis maybe?--ZiaLater (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I know the official version of the Venezuelan dictatorship: that Venezuela under Chavism is a thriving democracy, and that everything else is an attack from the evil right-wing that seeks to remove the beloved Maduro from power and establish an evil nazi government controlled by the foreign corporations that want to force people into poverty to get more profits, blah, blah. But who else takes that opinion seriously? International reactions seem to be unanimous against dictator Maduro. Cambalachero (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Cambalachero, your opinion is clearly non neutral. Look at your expressions and wording: that's the opinion of someone who obviously hates Bolivarism. And, btw, reactions were far from unanimous.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.173.144.0 (talk • contribs) — 190.173.144.0 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
See WP:UNDUE. Cambalachero (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
The title is not neutral. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
The Venezuelan National Assembly has not been dissolved and we can not call this a "self-coup". "The AN still exists, but remains in a state of contempt of the judicial system" --Jsaturno (talk) 08:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Venezuelanalysis.com is a pretty biased source in this situation. A possible dialogue is in the works, but knowing how the Venezuelan government is with dialogue, the opposition may not even show up to the table.--ZiaLater (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
The user sustains that Venezuelanalysis.com is biased but does not present any evidence to support that. Additionally, the user comments "...but knowing how the Venezuelan government is with dialogue...", which is not explained by him/her and constitutes a personal opinion on the issue that seems to support the Venezuelan opposition point of view. --Jsaturno (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Well I was fairly correct. Venezuelan government backtracked but not enough for the opposition. Yes, it was my opinion after observing the situation for years. Also, there have been multiple discussions about the reliability of VA. They state themselves that they are "pro-Bolivarian Revolution". Just saying that there are better sources out there and I think we found them.--ZiaLater (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Key Points Missing

I came to this article to see how the court justifies its decision (probably, even in Venezuela, court decisions are explained by the court), but this article lacks any coverage of the side of the court, which is key to understanding this conflict here. Can someone with more knowledge on Venezuela than me include this info? Gapcf (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The article is still incomplete. More than what you point, it currently talks about the background that led to the event, but not about the event itself. Cambalachero (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Working on it. Needs info about Rulings 155 and 156.--ZiaLater (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Nominated for ITN

{{ITN nom}} -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 31 March 2017

Hi The article should be moved, according to te sources per WP:COMMONNAME. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

To where? -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis could be a good title. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
That might work. I'm not really all that in love with the current title which seems cumbersome and probably one that will draw few searches. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
There's no "common name" for this event. --Cambalachero (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
no Disagree. Holy Goo (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it should be moved. The current title only reflects the opposition's POV. Everyking (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

There is a clear definition of what a self-coup is. Holy Goo (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Everyking, does anyone besides the Venezuelan government really think that Maduro is the victim of a right-wing imperialist conspiracy in this? See WP:UNDUE --Cambalachero (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree there should be a new title. The situation is not about any conspiracy from any political party. Unless the takeover is permanent without a doubt, only then this title should be added back. Maduro has recently stated that the situation will be resolved soon. I don't trust blindly what Maduro says, nor I am a Venezulan. I only think that it is too premature to call it a self-coup as the suspension of the National Assembly might be temporary. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

As already pointed in the article, yes, the takeover is permanent. There are no provisions on when or how the power would be returned to the legislature; if we go by the facts, not mere empty words, it is a permanent takeover. --Cambalachero (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
What kind of reason is that? Are you some expert on Venezuelan law? We don't rely by what you think. Your comment is complete self-interpretation and OR which is not allowed. At most your comment is confirming the uncertainty which I voiced about a permanent takeover. many countries can suspend legislature if they deem it as doing something unconstitutional or if it impedes national security. Of course there might be differences on opinions whether the Supreme tribunal's intent was "malicious" or partisan, but there is no doubt that constitutionality is the stated reason. The court never stated it is permanent nor there are any solid indications. You are severely violating the rules and with your partisan comments, your actions seem not in good faith. Sorry but that is how it seems. We cannot mention ANY personal opinion about someone here or allow it to be a factor in our edits. Therefore I am changing the title to a neutral one right now to keep it in line with Wikipedia rules. I'm not here to make unilateral decisions but rules have to kept intact. I will shortly be complaining about your behavior to have you punished for breaking the rules. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I've moved the title to 2017 dissolution of Venezuelan National Assembly as that is what it is. Also rewrote the lede and added some sources. As I am short on time, will add some more later today. In addition, Supreme tribunal already stated when it might be restored. Per it, the Assembly will remian suspended as long as the contempt situation or the unconstitutional one on which it was dismissed persists. (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/30/americas/venezuela-dissolves-national-assembly/) I will complain about you today Cambalachero for your rule-breaking behavior. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

No you didn't. Please discuss moves further or possibly introduce a RfC to this talk page.--ZiaLater (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
ZiaLater Your revert is highly irresponsible as you yourself haven't taken any RfC and are telling me. Your earlier comment and POV speculation about Venezuelan government is highly indicative of what you are doing. I am making sure the rules are being followed. What you did is against rules and you cannot simply copy and paste an article's content to a redirect to move it. You have to take consensus for it. I am not here for edit war and I am not going to move it thrice, but i have to revert this once for your rule violation. I am complaining about the behavior of you as well as another editor and undoing your rule violation. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@MonsterHunter32: If you need help opening a RfC, let me know. You made multiple articles redirecting the original which makes further moves difficult. Also, Wikipedia has guidelines. Instead of "complaining", discuss with editors on how to make this article better. I like bold edits, but moving an article in progress that is still being debated is too much, especially when multiple redirect articles are created to make the discussion more difficult.--ZiaLater (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
ZiaLater i don't need to remind you that rules have to be followed. What I did was solely to give a neutral title and make a move. but you copied and pasted which is against the rules. Why cannot you wait yourself for a short time? It's not like this article is in a rush and we can allow situation to become crystal clear. I am complaining exactly because of your disruptive behavior. No excuses will be listened to. i suggest you follow the rules and discard any POV or trying to impose your own rules. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Also a note that many international outlets as describing a self-coup based on others' statement or are simply highlighting it as "self-coup" etc. Some might call this self-coup themselves for condemnation of it. Regardless we aren't a newspaper. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Clearly a move was necessary, as the "self-coup" title was blatantly POV. And given the topical relevance of the subject, it needed to be done promptly. So yeah, in this case it was right to be "bold". Everyking (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not me who says that there are no provisions for returning those powers. It is the BBC, which references that point. And it's not the BBC "opinion" either, it is something that the BBC notices simply by reading the sentence. --Cambalachero (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Cambalachero You are making an OR statement again. The BBC didn't say there are no provisions. It only said that the Supreme Tribunal hasn't announced when or how it will restore the powers of the Assembly: It did not indicate if or when it might hand power back. However a day earlier article by CNN has the Tribunal hinted stating when it might: Let it be known that, as long as the contempt situation persists and the National Assembly actions are invalidated, this constitutional court will guarantee that all parliamentary functions will be exercised by this court, or an institution designed by it, in order to safeguard the rule of law. (source: [1]). MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight on OAS Secretary General

Why is it imperative to mention in the lede that the OAS Secretary General described this as a self-coup? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

We can remove it.--ZiaLater (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
It is one of the most prominent sources that helds this mainstream opinion. So yes, it has to be mentioned. --Cambalachero (talk) 12:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

History of the page

Hi I have reverted the edit to respect the history and the licence (authors). --Panam2014 (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: I apologize. I did not notice that the authors were not noted in the history of the article.--ZiaLater (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

title

I condemn the arbitrary moving of the article. It should again be called 2017 Venezuelan self-coup d'état. I ask Amortias to put that name again, as it is WP:STATUSQUO. Holy Goo (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Any changes need to be discussed here and gain consensus before they will be made - please read this page for more on this.Amortias (T)(C) 13:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No further moves should be made without talk page consensus. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

CN Tag

Can someone with access to appropriate sources please fix the CN tag in the article? We are trying to get this on the main page and CN tags are usually a problem at WP:ITNC. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

No, we can't. The supporters of Maduro started an edit and move war, and the article has been fully protected as a result. --Cambalachero (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I have unlocked the article. See below.

Cambalachero Who are you calling a supporter of Maduro? I am only here for one thing, to keep the article neutral and follor rules. You might now agree with me but that is not a reason to shower accusations at me. I have no intrest in politics of Venezuela and South America. Apologize right this instant. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Should be updated now and appropriate now.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I have marked the nomination as Ready at ITNC. Unfortunately I can't post it as I am INVOLVED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit and Move Warring

I have unlocked the article. However extended confirmed protection will remain in effect for 1 week for editing and any move during this time will require an admin. Non-extended confirmed editors may post requested edits on the talk page for review. Please be cautioned that I will be keeping an eye on the article and anyone engaging POV/edit warring will very quickly find themselves as an object of my attention. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The national assembly has not been dissolved

The national assembly has not been dissolved, the supreme court using the powers attributed to it by art 335 and 336 of the constitution of Venezuela of 1999 temporarily assumes the functions of the parliament accusing it of not respecting several sentences, this situation is of provisional form until The parliament accepts that it is under the jurisdiction of the supreme court.

In fact today the court published a clarification in which ratifies that.

In other words, the title is false and biased clearly not neutral because it only exposes the vision of the most radical opposition of the country and not the visions of both as it would correspond

I propose that the title be Venezuelan political crisis of 2017 or constitutional crisis of Venezuela of 2017 --Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Warairarepano The title wasn't "false" or "biased". It is meant to be neutral to replace the previous one. The functioning of the National Assembly is stopped. Some sources and people have called it "dissolved" or "effictevely dissolved". (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/30/americas/venezuela-dissolves-national-assembly/) (https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2017/03/31/geopolitical-irrelevance-renders-venezuela-crisis-moot-in-crisis-clad-latin-america/) (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-39449494) (http://santiagotimes.cl/2017/03/31/venezuelan-political-crisis-reaches-new-climax-as-national-assembly-is-dissolved/) The name can be changed if people find common ground. I would like to see new suggestions for the name to be seen as neutral as possible. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
2017 Venezuelian constitutional crisis is better because the court cancelled the decision. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Article Name

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move 2017 dissolution of Venezuelan National Assembly to 2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis, per the discussion below.--ZiaLater (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone! Just starting a discussion of the title where we can consolidate our thoughts. Like I proposed initially, we should use go the constitutional crisis route. I have seen Venezuelan political crisis of 2017, but that is too vague and could be confused with the Crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela. Going the dissolution route seems like it would be inappropriate because the Venezuelan government cannot even agree on what they did with the National Assembly. Also, since the decision was so temporary, the dissolution route seems weird since it was only "dissolved" for a few days. I also saw the argument of making the title a ruling or court decision, but we have so many of those on Wikipedia and the title would be too vague and not relative to Venezuela. I'm leaving this here since this seems to be the ideas at the moment and so we can have a more resolute discussion about the title of this article. ZiaLater (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  • FYI This article is move protected so that only an admin can rename it. I am keeping an eye on things and if/when a consensus is reached I will be happy to carry out the will of the community. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
P.S. It's a bit late now, but in general, RfCs should not be started unless there has been an attempt to gain consensus first on the article talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: I know, but the various sections of arguments on this talk page were not fruitful, so consolidating all arguments to this specific seemed to be the be the best move. Sorry for any mistakes I made recently and thank you for your help! :) --ZiaLater (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Polling

An unnecessary controversy is being created over the article. I support the current title of dissolution, but 2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis is fine with me too if that is what others prefer. I do not want to continue keep blaming but this is the uncomfortable truth. The original name 2017 Venezuelan self-coup d'état seems to have been made for biased reasons against the Venezuelan government and the comments and edits which only seem to want to bash the government seem indicative of the intent of some editors who want to keep it. Anyway it isn't very neutral especially in the current circumstances. Many leaders and even some news outlets have described it as a self-coup and coup but it wasn't so as it was only temporary. Anyway we go by sources and many of them mention the word "coup" and "self-coup" as highlighted to point it was spoken by someone else or directly mention it was spoken by someone else. They also state it as a dissolution or an effective dissolution of the National Assembly. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, keeping it as a coup is not the correct decision since that is more of an opinion and since the process was so short-lived.--ZiaLater (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis

Proposing the move to 2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis.--ZiaLater (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - Since I am proposing this move, I am mentioning my support here to be counted.--ZiaLater (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support per sources and the events. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I'm ok with 2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis as long as consensus is in favor of it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Since the TSJ reversed their decision, it makes completely sense to rename the article. --Sfs90 (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Everyking (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. Nominator has not provided sources that call this event a 'constitutional crisis' nor has he provided the rationale for this event to be considered as such. With my limited knowledge of Venezuelan laws, it seems this move was entirely lawful as either the Court or the President were already empowered legitimately to do such thing in order to "protect the republic" (regardless of whether the definition of said protection was ambiguous). Nominator must thus provide reliable sources that (1) calls this a "constitutional crisis" and (2) provide reliable sources that prove why this is a "constitutional crisis." Happy to change my !vote after that. (see below for update) —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • We don't edit, or obstruct edits, on the basis of personal knowledge of law or our opinions about the propriety or lack thereof, of given actions. Your comment above raises serious concerns on my part regarding your neutrality here. That said, we need to be careful that when assigning a name to an article that we are not running afoul of WP:SYNTH. There are plenty of RS sources referring to the recent event as constituting in some form or other, a coup or attempted coup. Are there sources referring to this as a constitutional crisis? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Reliable sources have been meticulous in noting that somebody else is calling the event a coup, not the source itself. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Well that answers my question. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • If you change your vote, don't forget to make a strikethrough on your initial one!--ZiaLater (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • How do we establish that those sources are reliable? I know the LA Times is reliable. But what about the others? Can you provide other sources already vetted by Wikipedia? That would make it easy. But so far, of those you provided, only the LA Times seems to be reliable. The other seem to be too vested in the affair or completely unreliable. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
As for Latin American Herald Tribune and Caracas Chronicles, they seem reliable enough. They regularly give up to date reliable news. Nor do they seem biased at least not much anyway. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The "Caracas Chronicles" is just a blog with a .com URL and a fancy name that makes it look like a newspaper when it's not. Their own website says so, "CaracasChronicles.com (on Twitter @CaracasChron) has been the place for opposition-leaning-but-not-insane analysis of the Venezuelan political scene since 2002. The blog aims to breathe life, insight, and wit into discussions of Venezuelan public life. Today, Caracas Chronicles is a group blog edited by the blog’s founder Francisco Toro (@BoringDev)." Doesn't seem to be reliable.
For the LAHT, do we have any sources proving their reliability? I have not been able to find anything that establishes their reliability, save that its editor-in-chief is Russell M. Dallen, Jr. Not even the article on Wikipedia establishes the notability of the publication.
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the NSNBC source, just showing how widespread the term "constitutional crisis" is used internationally. Anyways, it was difficult to find news about a "constitutional crisis" since Paraguay is facing a similar story now too. So here are some more sources:
"Venezuela is undergoing a constitutional crisis with its Supreme Court today reversing its own decision from earlier this week that it transferred powers from the national assembly to the court, which is loyal to President Nicolas Maduro" - PBS NewsHour, "Constitutional Crisis: In Wednesday’s ruling, the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Chamber declared the National Assembly was operating “outside the rule of law” after long standing claims that the legislature was in contempt of previous legal statements" - Bloomberg L.P.
Hope this helps! --ZiaLater (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Bloomberg + PBS NewsHour + LA Times are enough as reliable sources. Stroke my vote. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ahnoneemoos: You might be right about Caracas Chronicles but it has been cited by other journalists as useful including AP, American Quarterly etc. That's why I thought it might be reliable. Caracas Chronicles isn't your average one or few-man self-written blog with articles only catering to one subject or POV and seems to contain proper reporting and coverage. It doesn't seem to br really much biased though like many newspapers it will support a political outfit. Per guidlines it cannot be considered as unreliable, at least not outright and can be used as other reliable sources use it as well and recommend it. If there are other sources, we can use them instead. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment It looks like we are moving towards a consensus here. If we still have a strong consensus I will move the article tomorrow or Monday at the latest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad Orientem (talk • contribs) 19:13, April 1, 2017 (UTC)
  • Weakly disagree The proposed title is too vague and it seems to imply not a single event, like it really is, but something more constant. Just by reading the title, I don't think people would know the article is about the dissolution of the Assembly. I'm open to have my mind changed though Holy Goo (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Holy Goo: There is only one "constitutional crisis" incident that has happened this year. Such kind of titles aren't rare. Also there isn't a single incident. The article covers the annulment of the assembly, the appointment of legislators which seem to havr lead to this and the reversal. Both sides have blamed each other of extra-judicial actions. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: What do you think about this? Should we change it before its ITN?--ZiaLater (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Parliamentarian

In American English a "parliamentarian" is not a member of the parliament, nor a politician. They work for the parliament as a whole, and their job is do decide what the rules say. Although the use here is in the dictionary, I believe strongly that most American readers will get the wrong idea.Nick Beeson (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Protection of the page

How about someone remove the protection ,so autoconfirmed users like me can contribute to the article? Holy Goo (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: hey? Holy Goo (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Protests in infobox?

Not sure why my edits on the protests in the infobox are being reverted. Widely sourced that protests strengthened following the crisis. The "internal" condemnation is of the attorney general and a few others, which is rare.--ZiaLater (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I found sources for the increase of protests following the crisis. Hopefully this helps!--ZiaLater (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Still ongoing?

I don't understand how it remains ongoing when the decision to suspend National Assembly has been reversed and there doesn't seem to be anything which can be described as a constitutional crisis anymore. Of course, opposition and government tussle might go on along with protests, but until it actually is a crisis pertaining to law governance and constitution, it cannot be presented as ongoing. 117.215.227.106 (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

There are still protests going on. I guess that's why it's an ongoing event. Holy Goo (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
The protests also have the main purpose of demanding the destitution of the judges, so the situation will continue developing for a while --Jamez42 (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
The decision to suspend the National Asembly haven't been reversed because it only can be reversed in the same National Asambly Sorckas (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Is it still ongoing even now? Bulbbulb29054 (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
The plot to close the congress with a judicial ruling has been abandoned, yes, but things are far from over. As detailed in "aftermath", now they will try to do this the long way: with a constituent assembly. --Cambalachero (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Bulbbulb29054 (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_Venezuelan_constitutional_crisis/Archive_1&oldid=1186361038"