Talk:Popular Will

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

December 2015[edit]

Hi...regarding my addition of the citations showing that Popular Will is regarded as "left-leaning"...I will take this to arbitration if necessary. Chavistas want to represent their opponents as not being of the political left, and many of them are of the political left. The articles I am linking show not only that outsiders (including the Chicago Sun-Times, an obviously reputable source) regard Voluntad Popular as "left-leaning", but that Voluntad Popular has gotten a transgender woman elected to the Congress, which is not only pretty clearly something a left-wing party would do, but which is something which shows the PSUV taking a traditionalist social conservative position (PSUV candidates are notoriously hostile to homosexuals - they have in the past stigmatised their opponents as homosexuals to win votes). I do not accept that this edit is incorrect and I will fight on the matter. It is documented, and attempts to remove this only show the Chavista slant of those editors trying to revert the change. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down dude. I suggest you take a step back and WP:AGF. You are basically accusing me of being a Chavista or working for them - an accusation I find laughable. If you would approach this in a civil manner you would find that I am probably much more on your side than you realize, being as how I contribute to several articles related to corruption in Venezuela. You have once source stating the group is left-leaning. There are sources saying it is right-leaning. The founder, Leo Lopez, expressly intended it to be a centrist party that does not adhere to ideologies, but to justice and the rule of law, which do not currently exist under PSUV. Its not a left-wing party. Its a centrist party. DaltonCastle (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 3rd person chipping in. I should add that most outside the party describe it as being rightist. The govt says "fascist". The first person obviously is a member. There should be a section on its leader and other members imprisoned on terrorism and explosives charges and fomenting violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.134.44 (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article NAME[edit]

The article should be called Voluntad Popular. Popular Will sounds like... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjgonzalezp2006 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Political position[edit]

Hi, I believe the way the political ideology of Popular Will is portrayed slightly inaccurate. It is listed as centre-left, progressive, and social democratic despite the fact the party pursues more centre-right policies. However, they do describe themselves as these things so perhaps we can say it's "self-described"? I'm pretty sure this is done in pages for other political parties who give themselves misleading labels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:4400:9C1:90F8:BC55:4BAB:B3D (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page also lists Popular Will as Third Way and Progressive. Third Way is not progressive. Leopoldo Lopez is a right-leaning leader, and this is definitely not a left or even center-left party. Self-describing as something does not make you that thing. SalvadorZombie (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Asqueladd: Hi. My main reason for citing WP:UNDUE was the following line: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. This is because the current source claiming that Popular Will has been described as "far-right" is not tertiary, and furthermore, the government's point of view is already covered in the content (Popular Will has been variously described as right wing, even "fascist" by the government). If the statement can be supported by tertiary sources and properly represented, it would solve this issue, but otherwise it should be removed due to the aforementioned reasons. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NoonIcarus: The fact that VP (Popular Will) is "centre-left" is not such a majority view. VP is often evaluated as an anti-trust democratic force, but ideology or political position is not often mentioned.--Storm598 (talk) 10:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Storm598: Could you please elaborate further into this? VP belongs to tthe Socialist International, its principles support a welfare state and the party even had the second trasgender woman in public office in the Americas elected to the National Assembly. A reason why the definition was included was to remove the "far-right" label, as well as since it represents the lead and body of the article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NoonIcarus: I think VP's ideological orientation may not necessarily be "Centre-left." Of course, it is true that VP takes a socially progressive position, but it also shows an economic liberal tendency. I think it is close to "Centre to centre-left". It's not that there's no source who actually describes VP as "Centre".--Storm598 (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Centre-left[edit]

I think VP is difficult to see as left-of-center in Latin America. The left-wing and right-wing sides of Latin America have serious camp logic in diplomatic issues, and even Juan Guaidó, a major VP politician, sees it very negatively in major Latin American left-wing camps, including Brazil's Lula da Silva, but rather defends him in Latin American right-wing camp.--Storm598 (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is certain is that even if VP is ideologically social democratic centre-left, I don't think VP should describe its political position because it belongs to the Diplomatic right-wing camp, not the left-wing. VP is only a democratization force, but its political position is not often mentioned. Therefore, I think writing "Centre-left" in the article Popular Will will only confuse readers.--Storm598 (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't necessarily true. Lenín Moreno, President of Ecuador who belonged to the same party as Rafael Correa, alligned with Guaidó, and something similar can be said of Carlos Alvarado Quesada, President of Costa Rica, as well as other Western social-democratic governments that might not fit neatly in the rigth/left divide. What I can agree on is that the ideology might not be particularly useful to describe a party that has not held prominent offices, with few exceptions, and those that have been held (namely mayorships) might not help in describing the party's ideology. --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well... I think it's also necessary to talk about the perspective of a third party who doesn't have an interest in this matter. In fact, the image of Guaidó and VP is not very good in South Korea. In South Korea, not only social democrats but also liberal netizens recognize Guaido as a "far right" or "Chinilpa"(To be exact, an imperialist traitor similar to "Chinilpa") who colluded with foreign powers. Of course, the Moon Jae-in government approved Guaidó as the president of Venezuela, but it is close to the South Korean government being wary of the international community and has nothing to do with public opinion. (liberal journalist) Kim Ou-joon, who strongly supported the DPK and Moon Jae In governments in South Korea and ran broadcast programs in the Seoul Broadcasting System, referred to Guaidó as "far right" or "Coup d'État". Kim evaluated Guaidó like this: "The leader of Venezuela's small far-right political party, the Popular Will party" (베네수엘라의 작은 극우파 정당인 인민의지당).# --Storm598 (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it should be taken into account that South Korean liberals are classified as (relatively) center-left in the South Korean political structure and have a nationalistic tendency. I don't think VP is a far-right force, but I don't think it's a "centre-left" in the general sense. If we have to write your political position on the infobox, it is desirable to write "centre to centre-left".--Storm598 (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the political position of "Centre-left." It has been changed to "Centre to centre-left". Al Jazeera also describes the party as centrist and even in Forbes, a conservative journalist in the United States, as centrist. Mainstream media around the world rarely describe VP as "centre-left".--Storm598 (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Especially in Latin America, the term "liberal" is not used well in the left-wing camp because it reminds us of the economic liberalism of right-wing forces based on political authoritarianism in the past 20th century. Since VP is also a center-left party, the term "liberal" is not used, but the direction they aim for would be ideologically closer to social liberalism, not general social democracy.--Storm598 (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2024

References previously included[1] and removed[2]:

  • Hernández, Arelis R. (2019-04-19). "Venezuela's Guaidó waging election-style campaign in a country with no plans for an election". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2024-01-26. At the start of the year, the 35-year-old leader of the center-left Popular Will party was a relative unknown in national politics.
  • "Why Venezuela Revives Historical Tensions Over U.S. Intervention in Latin America". Time Magazine. 2019-01-25. Retrieved 2024-01-26. A second key difference is that Guaidó, who belongs to the center-left Popular Will party, does not plan to become Venezuela's permanent president.
  • "Fact or Fiction: 5 Points on What's Happening in Venezuela". International Republican Institute. 2019-02-07. Retrieved 2024-01-26. Guaido himself belongs to Voluntad Popular (VP – Popular Will), a center-left social democratic political party.
  • "Venezuela Analysis: Violence & Protests Continue". Max Security. 2019-04-01. Retrieved 2024-01-26. On January 5, the National Assembly elected Juan Guaido of the center-left Voluntad Popular (Popular Will) (VP) party as the body's new President.
  • "Venezuela's Golden Boy Plots to Save Country From His Jail Cell". Bloomberg. 2016-01-21. Retrieved 2024-01-26. After a stint at another break-away party, Lopez created Popular Will, a center-left movement. --NoonIcarus (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding the center-left description sources, but in the sources you included, the International Republican Institute is related to Popular Will and Max Security is a blog post, so not the best sources. I did my best to provide balanced and attributed information on political stance and you were pretty quick to tag. What concerns do you have? WMrapids (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The main issue that remains is that it has been established that the description of the party as "center-left" is still common. Other uses include The New York Times' piece "Venezuela’s Crisis: What My Fellow Liberals Don’t Understand", even if it is an opinion video, and that's without stating other facts, such as its membership in the Socialist International or its election of the first transgender deputy in Venezuela, things totally uncommon for a far-right party. If you need academic sources I can recommend Revista Democratización or others published by universities, such as the Andes University and the Andrés Bello Catholic University. Hope this helps to clarify, cheers. --NoonIcarus (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention: other new issues include but are not limited to the added labels like The US-funded International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute, or the description as a far-right party. --NoonIcarus (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is original research on your part to assume that wearing some political hats determines the political stance. We have multiple source describing the party as right wing and far-right (radical right). The sources you provided within the article were Bachelor degree theses that are not appropriate for citation. So, while Western media outlets describe the party as "center left", we have peer reviewed journals and other reputable sources saying otherwise. WMrapids (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should add center-left to right in the political position. There are many newspapers that call him right-wing. Even Lemonde Diplomatique calls the party extreme right. It is undeniable that Lemonde Diplomatique is not a Chavista outlet or anything like that. 2800:2502:123:47E1:7632:4E5C:2389:A28E (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zachary Klaas, DaltonCastle, and SalvadorZombie: Seeing that you three have discussed the political position in the past, I wanted to seek your thoughts on the current wording on the party's political position:

Popular Will's political position has been variously described as centrist, center-right, right-wing and far-right by academic and media sources. Some media outlets and the party itself use a center-left description. Nicolás Maduro and government officials have called the party far-right and fascist.

Any suggestions? Are the sources appropriate? Thank you in advance! WMrapids (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My objection would be to "some media outlets". This seems to put Venezuela's crony press on a par with objective journalists. Just say the party says it's centre-left and Maduro says different, and cite where the claims are being made. Let people judge from that. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zachary Klaas: I have changed the sentence in the following way: Popular Will's political position has been variously described as centrist, center-left (a description that the party uses), center-right and right-wing by academic and media sources. Nicolás Maduro and government officials have called the party "far-right" and "fascist". Is this an acceptable phrasing? Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it matters what the party itself says, this has not been included your change. Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zachary Klaas: My apologies. I have included this in the change. Is it better now? --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not overly impressed with the implication that only they are saying so, but so long as the page indicates that they are in the Socialist International, I'll be fine with this, unless the next step is to imply the Socialist International is right-wing or something. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zachary Klaas: Many thanks! You're also free to change the text, if you like. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further academic sources provided:

Tags…[edit]

@NoonIcarus: With your history of tagging, can you provide an explanation for these tags? We have discussed this multiple times in the past how you drop tags with little explanation or recommendations (see: Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 5#Tags?? and Talk:ZunZuneo#Drive by tagging). Can you provide some recommendations so we can avoid edit warring on content? WMrapids (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's review what "Tag bombing" is first before I repeat the rationale: Tag bombing is the unjustified addition of numerous tags to pages or unjustified addition of one tag to multiple pages.¿. By my count, I have only tagged possibly a little over 12 articles in the span of four months, mostly adding only one or two in each, and each time I have provided an explanation in edit summaries or in the talk page, as well as tried to solve them when I've had the chance. That hardly qualifies either as "unjustified" or "numerous". Let's compare that with the tag where I first used the term ([3]) and the difference should be clear.
In this article, I have repeatedly explained why I have disputed the changes and why they are not neutral in these edit summaries: [4][5][6][7][8], as well as in the #Political position and #Centre-left sections above. I'm sorry but, considering this, saying that the last tags have "little explanation or recommendations" is simply dishonest. I hope that your accusations of "tag bombing" stop unless you have stronger evidence to provide.
With this being said, I'll explain once again, hoping it's clear: the majority of sources don't say that Popular Will is a right-wing party, per WP:WEIGHT. Some sources might argue that, but that is not the mainstream point of view, and that's without going into what common sense says: that the party is affiliated with the Socialist International and that one of its deputies was the first transgender politician elected in Venezuela.
I sought to include "center-right" in the infobox ideology due to the sources you provided, as well as referencing the description as "fascist" and "extreme right" by the government to cover their point of view but, among other things, I have shown how academic sources and other references use "center-left" as well. --NoonIcarus (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The concerns of other users with your tagging is adequate evidence. You say that the "majority" of sources do not use a right-wing description, yet, where is your evidence of this when academic sources use such descriptions for the party. As for the links with Socialist International, multiple Latin American parties have used the international as a networking platform instead of an ideological stance (see: Radical Civic Union, others). Also, as noted above, Bachelor degree theses are not reliable sources. WMrapids (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WMrapids: Then say that from the start, don't say that I'm "not providing explanations or recommendations". WP:SCHOLARSHIP doesn't say anything about bachelor thesis not being notable or unreliable, it only says that: Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. Both works that I have offered have dissertation advisors, as it happens with any completed thesis, and care should be taken with using scholar sources as primary references in any context.
I have demonstrated that academic sources also refer to VP as a "center-left" party, meaning that the text should not say that it is only referred as such by the media. That is the rationale of the tags. The issues regarding the "fascist" and "extreme right" labels remain. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. WP:SCHOLARSHIP doesn't say anything about bachelor thesis not being notable or unreliable. You failed to mention the remainder of WP:SCHOLARSHIP:

    Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.

    So, anything below a doctoral thesis must be of "significant scholarly influence" to be recognized as reliable and, unfortunately, bachelor theses are even lower than a Master's thesis.
  2. I have demonstrated that academic sources also refer to VP as a "center-left" party. Which other sources that are not the bachelor theses?
  3. The issues regarding the "fascist" and "extreme right" labels remain. Which ones specifically? You added one in yourself. Saying that only the government describes the party as far right would be inaccurate when we have the other sources.
WMrapids (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in WP:SCHOLARSHIP says that said dissertations are unreliable, just that they need a process of academic peer reviewing and rigor. I should have already made clear the issues about due weight by this point. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Popular_Will&oldid=1215084605"