Talk:Fabiana Rosales

Interim first lady

@Surtsicna: there is no such a thing as "interim first lady", also her notability is in part due to Guaidó, Guaidó has to appear in the first lines of the lead. --MaoGo (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I see. Is there a reason not to mention the phrase "First Lady of Venezuela"? Surtsicna (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: thanks. I am not a fan of the "she has been referred to" without attribution, if you can find more reliable articles or an important Venezuelan who has said it, it would be better (if not it should clearly say that Trump referred to her as First Lady).--MaoGo (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources

@Surtsicna: Before this article gets too long and hard to correct: add the website/publisher to every source, the language (if different from English), the date, and if possible do not leave empty fields in the ref template. --MaoGo (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. And if I do not do everything right, feel free to step in. Surtsicna (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Also asiesmargarita.com does not seem like a reliable source. --MaoGo (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Why is that? Surtsicna (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: Seems too local and I could not find anything about that website aside from their editor in their own "quiénes somos" page. Try to get better sources.--MaoGo (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I see nothing in WP:RS warning against "local" sources. Feel free to provide better sources yourself. Surtsicna (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@MaoGo:, I wouldn't have used some of those sources, particularly not for a BLP, but they aren't sourcing anything that can't be found elsewhere, so I left them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

"partially recognized acting president" - No.

Whoever wrote that has a fundamental contradiction in his mind.

A president gets elected. There is no recognising in the process.

I am not going to correct this because I will not go into a edit-war nor a discussion. This is clear.

Its not my mind that is twisting existence.

If you people think such wording brings any improvement to the world, then keep it and you will accept its consequences (with or without notice). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.154.167 (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it was dreadful. I fixed it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Guaidó was not elected president. "Recognized by more than 50 governments" = "partially recognized", so there is nothing dreadful about that. Wikipedia defines Juan Guaidó as the "partially recognized acting President of Venezuela". I am sure you are familiar with that wording, SandyGeorgia. Surtsicna (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Is he recognized from the waist up, or the waist down :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. Let's ask the 50+ governments :P Surtsicna (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Fabiana and the AN

Ok according to a new source from the National Assembly (AN), she is "considered" as First Lady. Problem 1, the link is broken (can somebody fix it?), problem 2 if I remember the article correctly, is does not claim Fabiana=FL it just uses the title to refer to Fabiana as such in a news piece of the AN. Is this enough to write that she is considered as such? Same problem with White House (Trump) piece.--MaoGo (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Hi, folks. I have nominated the article for DYK. You can see the nomination here. Surtsicna (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Legal name

@SandyGeorgia: From my understand, her legal name is still "Fabiana Andreina Rosales Guerrero". The "de Guaidó" is simply a formality because she's married to Guaidó. If anything, we could format it as "Fabiana Adreina Rosales de Guaidó (née Guerrero)"? It's complicated for Spanish-language names because of the two surnames. Let me know your thoughts. Cheers, MX (✉ • ✎) 15:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure where you got that understanding; I had a passport and Venezuelan cédula that say differently?? (To the extent that I had to add the "de" to my U.S. Passport as well or I couldn't get out of the country with my children.) Women typically continue to use informally their birth name, but the married name is used in formal situations (we should re-do the Spanish naming template). @Jamez42: might know if Chavismo did something to change legal names in Venezuela that I missed in the last 20 years ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Or @MaoGo: or @Oscar .: might be able to enlighten ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

If Wikipedia doesn't recognize full legal Spanish names, we have tons of work to do! For example, Cilia Adela Gavidia Flores de Maduro ... there will be lots! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

See also US Treasury on Cilia Flores de Maduro [1]; the Treasury sanction pages are scrupulous about getting full names correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

And Canada: [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm almost completely certain that during the presidencies of Chávez and of Maduro there have not been changes regarding people's legal names. In my experience, it's way more common in Venezuela for children to have their father's last names, not usually their mothers. I found this document requesting precautionary measures to the Inter-American Comission of Human Rights to Guaidó and Fabiana, and indeed, her legal name is referred as "Fabiana Andreina Rosales Guerrero" (page 19/20). I also found her cédula, 20,394,015, and just to be extra careful I looked it up in the Electoral Council's website, where she's listed with the same legal name. On the other hand, Cilia's cédula is 5,315,632, and is listed as "Cilia Adela Flores de Maduro", married name but with two last names, without "Gavidia". Having a third last name it's rare, and it also sounds weird too. From what I gather, it seems this was added by the CSIS because she's married. It's been quite some time since long names have been used (see Simón Bolívar or Pablo Picasso), and I'm strongly in favor of keeping her legal name, without "de Guaidó", like it is in the Spanish Wikipedia. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, so how and where do we spell out her full name then? And what would we do about the inconsistency across all Venezuelan articles? Should we just add an AKA after names? (Also, while it is not common to use all of one's last names, I would say that the shortened (dropping Mother's last name) is the most common in my experience ... that is Rosales de Guaido rather than Rosales Guerrero de Guaido). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I googled for the alternative spelling of her name, but it seems only a few English sources (or based in the US) use Juan's last name ([3][4][5]). I personally think we shouldn't use the alternative name, a discussion could be started along with the rest of the articles. My suggestion in the other cases would be to check the references, when feasible, to see where the full name comes from; if we want to look after the legal name, I think the Electoral Council is the most trustworthy source. I've seen Dateas being referenced in some articles, which seems to cite the legal name directly. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I have changed it, but this is troubling. I am looking at my Cedula de Identidad and I am most clearly a "de", having the right to both names, as I had to attest with a certified and legalized marriage license when I got the cedula. You won't find me in the electoral registry, though. Are we really going to rely on something run by Tibisay? It troubles me that we would do away with a woman's full name, since custom so kindly allows a woman to retain her full birth identity even if taking on another name by marriage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Even though the electoral registry has needed updating and curation for quite some time, with the time there are persons that are taken out of the registry. That being said, the other option is using Dateas, which is a little easier since you need the ID for the CNE, and if we are talking about public officials it is likely that their full names can be consulted elsewhere, such as the US Department of the Treasury. I just checked the names of the rest of the sanctioned (Jorge Rodróguez: 6823952, Delcy Rodríguez: 10353667, Padrino López: 6122963) and the US Treasury name all of them accordingly. I think, though, that the issue would be evaluating the use in English. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: a 1997 United Nations press release says The Civil Code was reformed in 1982 and provides the husband and wife with the same rights and obligations. Various provisions cover property, use of the husband's name; parental authority and custody over children. One of the reasons I had to get my name right was that if one parent wanted to travel outside of Venezuela with the children, a stamp in the passport with permission from the other parent was required, and the names had to be right. I found "Reforma del Código Civil en 1982, la Ley Aprobatoria para la Eliminación de todas las Formas de Discriminación contra la Mujer" mentioned elsewhere, with this as a starting place. And from there, I found this:

APELLIDO DE LA MUJER CASADA: La mujer está facultada para usar el apellido de su marido (Art. 137). Se considera que no infringe los deberes del matrimonio la mujer que no usa el apellido del marido. Antes de la reforma de 1982, la mujer estaba obligada a usar el apellido del marido.

Not sure where that leaves us, except it explains some of the discrepancies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: As I understand, in Venezuela the wife can decide whenever to use their husband's last name or not. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

That's what I'm reading as well, and that jives. I may be older than you, so remember the 1982 change :) So, that explains discrepancies, but the "de" is not just a social custom-- it is sometimes the legal name, sometimes not ... I think what we have in the article now suffices? [6] The Electoral registry (which might be outdated) has no "de Guaido", but we mention that some call her by that. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the current version is alright, unless any other editor objects. I should also mention, excellent analysis :) --Jamez42 (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Fabiana Andreina Rosales Guerrero (born 22 April 1992), also known by her married name as Fabiana Rosales de Guaidó, is a Venezuelan journalist ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

References

• I've made a minor correction per MOS:MULTIPLENAMES. Please check and let me know. Thank you all for your responses. MX (✉ • ✎) 21:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• From the discussion here, and based on personal/legal/regional differences, I've knocked up a Template:Spanish married name template, which I've added here, and should be used as well as the Spanish name template. Kingsif (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I wish we didn't have two naming templates ... it would be nice to combine both concepts into one. Hispanics have lots of names, but the top of the article is so cluttered now ... what about ...
    • The first or paternal family name is Rosales and the second or maternal family name is Guerrero and the married name is de Guaido. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
      • I tried that, as of yet haven't managed to get it to work. Theoretically, you could put whatever you wanted up there with the {{Hatnote}} template. Kingsif (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
      • @SandyGeorgia: updated it. You can now use Template:Spanish married name when there are three, because I haven't yet functioned it to not show "and for married women..." if there isn't something there yet. whenever, I've fixed it so it functions if there aren't three names entered. Kingsif (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
        • I could also theoretically make it so that the "de" is optional, too. Kingsif (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
          • Awesome! (Could you work back in the Spanish naming customs link?) I think we've got it now. MOS:MULTIPLENAMES needs to be fixed, but I left behind my MOS Maven days years ago ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Image deleted

The image was deleted in this edit. Without mention in edit summary. Then, when I removed the infobox, I failed to notice that the image had been deleted. What a bummer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Surtsicna:, so sorry I failed to notice the image deletion, that was not mentioned in edit summary. Sneaky. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

That's the biggest reason I prefer not to have an infobox here. It leaves little room for images, which add more value. But the article fared well even without the Trump photo, I think :) Surtsicna (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Reinsertion of the Infobox

@Ballers19: thanks for your edits. Nevertheless in the talk above we have discussed that it would be better to not have an infobox in this article to avoid the kind of controversies that we had had before (and that we have now in Talk:Juan Guaidó#RfC on infobox).--MaoGo (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. The neutrality of this article can still be present with the inbox, just like with the article of Juan Guaido. If you list 'disputed' it makes the labels unofficial, but still valid. She has been recognized as the First Lady by more than 50 countries around the world, therefore, she should remain entitled to have a label in Wikipedia by using an info box. She is a First Lady of the disputed term of Juan Guaido. With this being said, please refrain from removing her labels. If you have any ideas on how to make her article more neutral, we can discuss it here FIRST. Thank you for your understanding. Talk:Juan Guaidó#RfC on infobox).-- [User:Ballers19|Ballers19]] (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

You are free to disagree, but I recommend not editwarring over infoboxes. The discussion was had above, and at Template:Did you know nominations/Fabiana Rosales. Until/unless you have consensus for an infobox, please do not add one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I was not included in the discussion. We can come o a consensus for an info box if that is what is needed, however, there needs to be some form of inbox present that includes Fabiana's partially recognized title as "First Lady of Venezuela". With that being said, before deleting everything, let's talk. Ballers19 (Talk) 19:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Nobody excluded you from the discussion, and the consensus was reached without you. You are welcome to present your case here, but until we reach a new consensus, please do not reinsert disputed content. There is no requirement that any infobox be included in this article, let alone one that includes the disputed title. Surtsicna (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It makes no sense why an inbox cannot be included. Her husband is the disputed President of Venezuela, and she is his First Lady. First Ladies also receive officeholding info boxes. Although she did not declare herself like Guaido did, on her social media, her biographies state clearly "First Lady (Encharge) of Venezuela". Meaning, she declared herself as the Acting First Lady, just like Guaido declared himself President by using the Constitution. With that, many governments such as the United States, Colombia, Argentina, and Chile have met with Fabiana and recognized her as the legitimate First Lady. If Juan Guaido's infobox is neutral, then Fabiana's can be neutral as well by simply saying her term is disputed. Simple, right? You can be neutral by still including an inbox for Fabiana, because she now works as First Lady and she took on the job not long after Guaido 'took' the Presidency. You may not agree with everything going on in Venezuela, but as I stand up for my family in Venezuela, I will make things right by being fair with both sides of the argument. The fact of the matter is, Fabiana is a disputed officeholder just ike Juan Guaido, therefore, she should have an inbox like Juan Guaido has. I will continue to fight for this until she receives an infobox. Ballers19 (Talk) 20:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The use of an infobox is not required. Nobody "needs an infobox". The lead sentence perfectly explains her position. The infobox introduces information not present in the article and not sourced. So, to reiterate, no, thank you. Surtsicna (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ballers19: Aside from this discussion, if you have a source from Colombian, Argentinan and Chilian authorities calling her First Lady or Acting First Lady we would like to see it. It would honestly be nice to include such a source in the article. --MaoGo (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Guaidó's infobox is currently under discussion, also Guaidó having or not an infobox does not imply Fabiana should have one, . --MaoGo (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. The infobox is more a more formal presentation of her position, even though it may already explain it in the first paragraph. If you look at ANY officeholder, or anyone famous really, their information in the intro paragraph is also in their info box. Why? Because it holds all important information that is easier to find rather than just looking through paragraphs to find what you are looking for. I never said anyone NEEDS an infobox or that it was required. What I stated was that she is an officeholder and, therefore, should have an infobox to put into a more formal presentation of who she is and her position. I will continue to give her an infobox if this goes on. Someone will get tired of changing it eventually. Ballers19 (Talk) 21:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Please remember the three revert rule.--MaoGo (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Ballers19, the Gauido article has been tagged POV, and one of the (several) reasons is that the infobox contains that disputed information, with no context and with the "disputed" hard to see, when it is not such a cut-and-dried situation that can be explained in one infobox parameter. By insisting on an infobox here, you risk having this article be tagged POV as well. And then no one will read the article anyway, so what is gained? We came to consensus here to leave it off to avoid these problems. You should also be aware that infobox editwarring has been the subject of several arbitration cases on Wikipedia, and is seriously something to be avoided. You're in a spot now where you could be blocked for WP:3RR, and infobox warring is viewed very negatively by admins. I think I can say that no one here wants to report you for editwarring, so please understand how important it is in infoboxes cases to not reinsert information for which there is not consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about infobox

We need a new talk about regarding adding an infobox for Fabiana Rosales. I can copy and paste my previous argument to start off.

It makes no sense why an inbox cannot be included. Her husband is the disputed President of Venezuela, and she is his First Lady. First Ladies also receive officeholding info boxes. Although she did not declare herself like Guaido did, on her social media, her biographies state clearly "First Lady (Encharge) of Venezuela". Meaning, she declared herself as the Acting First Lady, just like Guaido declared himself President by using the Constitution. With that, many governments such as the United States, Colombia, Argentina, and Chile have met with Fabiana and recognized her as the legitimate First Lady. If Juan Guaido's infobox is neutral, then Fabiana's can be neutral as well by simply saying her term is disputed. Simple, right? You can be neutral by still including an inbox for Fabiana, because she now works as First Lady and she took on the job not long after Guaido 'took' the Presidency. You may not agree with everything going on in Venezuela, but as I stand up for my family in Venezuela, I will make things right by being fair with both sides of the argument. The fact of the matter is, Fabiana is a disputed officeholder just ike Juan Guaido, therefore, she should have an inbox like Juan Guaido has. Ballers19 (Talk) 22:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention that the Spanish version of this is a better-written article. They include everything while keeping a neutral standpoint. They both should be the same, so I recommend copying the unbiased Spanish article.

I would be glad to provide sources.

https://twitter.com/fabiirosales?lang=en (look at her biography, it is on her Instagram profile as well). https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article228640384.html

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1106907/Venezuela-news-Donald-Trump-white-House-Fabina-Rosales-Juan-Guaido (Take a look at the title, there are many articles out there that label her as First Lady as well. Not to mention President Trump called her First Lady on his instagram post.) https://www.instagram.com/p/BvhjMEylD5U/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1124727423164137474

https://www.csis.org/events/conversation-venezuelan-interim-first-lady-fabiana-rosales-de-guaido

https://www.thecaravelgu.com/blog/2019/4/1/interim-first-lady-of-venezuela-embarks-on-tour-of-latin-america

https://www.voanoticias.com/a/fabiana-rosales-desestima-nuevas-medidas-contra-su-esposo/4857984.html (Venezuela) https://www.alamy.com/santiago-chile-20th-mar-2019-fabiana-rosales-c-wife-of-venezuela-national-assembly-presodent-juan-guaido-and-chilean-first-lady-cecilia-morel-l-meet-at-the-palacio-de-la-moneda-in-santiago-chile-20-march-2019-rosales-met-morel-at-the-headquarters-of-the-executive-and-thanked-chile-for-being-on-her-side-in-the-crisis-in-her-country-rosales-stated-that-the-crisis-in-venezuela-is-a-case-of-humanity-that-goes-beyond-any-political-position-credit-alberto-valdesefealamy-live-news-image241357501.html (Where Fabiana traveled to Chile, Peru, the U.S., and all around Venezuela)

https://www.abc.es/internacional/abci-fabiana-rosales-primera-dama-venezolana-visita-sebastian-pinera-chile-antes-cumbre-prosur-201903211115_noticia.html https://www.emol.com/noticias/Internacional/2019/03/19/941638/Fabiana-Rosales-la-primera-dama-encargada-de-Venezuela-que-visita-Chile-esta-semana.html (Chile)

https://albertonews.com/nacionales/primera-dama-e-fabiana-rosales-se-reunira-con-venezolanos-en-peru-este-23mar/ (Peru). https://www.rcrperu.com/fabiana-rosales-esposa-de-presidente-de-venezuela-juan-guaido-cumplira-recargada-agenda-en-peru-este-fin-de-semana/ (Peruvian media calling her the First Lady).

Shall I continue? Or have I proven my point. Ballers19 (Talk) 23:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Please avoid giving a massive wall of links without context. Most of the info you are providing is already covered in the article and some of those links are not reliable sources. How is this information related to the infobox? --MaoGo (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to look at the links. I will present my information in the ways I want, thank you. She has been recognized as the First Lady and should receive that label with a formal infobox just like every other officeholder. The reason why there is no infobox is because "her label is disputed". Well, there can be ways to present neutral information while at the same having a formal and informative article. Formality comes in when there is an infobox, without one, people will not think she is that important or valid. Guaido has an infobox, so she should have one as well, as she is the acting First Lady. Since Maduro's presidency is disputed well, his infobox should be removed too??? Huh? Also, Fabiana has info boxes in the Spanish, Japanese, and Slavic langauges. Maybe we should just have people start to refer to their articles instead because they are more formal and informative than the English version. Not to mention the Spanish one looks AMAZING. Ballers19 (Talk) 00:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose infobox for this case, because it will bring potential problems to the article, including possibly charges of POV. We know she's considered the First Lady of Venezuelan by half the world, we know there are sources that aupport that claim, but infoboxes are not mandatory, not required, and in this case, an infobox is best avoided. It is not possible in a single infobox parameter to convey the information that half the world considers her First Lady, while another half of the world doesn't. When an infobox cannot convey nuance, it is better to avoid having one at all. (Also, as an aside, you should know Ballers19 that the reason Guaido has an infobox right now, which is a POV problem, is because you put it there,[7] so that is circular reasoning.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, honestly this is all ridiculous. The articles are fine just how they are. POV is not even that relevant. Readers do not even care that much about neutrality, they are just there to get informed in some sort of way. I was not the only one who put an info box in the article of Juan Guaido, and there never was a problem with it until just recently. He has had an info box for months, but all of a sudden people want to change things constantly rather than leaving them how they should be. the same goes for Fabiana's article. She had an info box, but some people get "offended" by it even though it still voiced neutrality. By the way only less than a few dozen countries still recognize Maduro, and the majority recognize Guaido. All the other countries are either neutral or do not care enough to focus on Venezuela's problems. It is absurd and this is why people do not use Wikipedia as much as they should. I will be telling everyone I know to refer to the Spanish based articles if they want to be informed about Guaido or Rosales, because you all are bringing more problems and issues to these articles than the 2019 Presidential Crisis itself. Ballers19 (Talk) 01:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Sadly the 2019 Venezuelan uprising has brought too much user attention to Wikipedia's Venezuelan articles. This has created enormous discussions in almost every wikiarticle related to the 2019 crisis, like the ravaging uprising vs coup discussion. The subject is delicate. To avoid more debate the best would be that everybody read the articles instead of concentrating into quick facts shown in an infobox (or the title). Guaido's infobox is under discussion due to many different (and valid) opinions that have been brought to the talks. Interestingly, the article of Fabiana does not make part of those controversies but we had decided that it was best to keep it uninfoboxed a while ago. Her position is even more delicate that Guaido's, "is she really First Lady according to the constitution?", "has there been any of historical instance of a First Lady for an ACTING president?", "why Chile, Argentina and Colombia do not refer to her explictly as First Lady?". Also, the article is a little bit short and the removal of the infobox allows for more images. --MaoGo (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

You people are the only ones who are debating this. If you look at the other articles in other languages, they do not even discuss this. It is not needed. Just leave it how it is. Like I said, I will be telling everyone to look at the Spanish version, because it is more organized and has less drama than the English version. Ballers19 (Talk) 18:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're not understanding how Wikipedia works. Juan Guaidó has a big fat warning at the top of the page telling readers not to trust what they read there. One of the problems there is that you re-installed an infobox that contains misleading information. The other problem is that your approach could lead to same on this article. The remaining problem with your logic is that the reason this is not an issue on the es.wiki is that no one has stuck a big label on the Spanish article, fortunately. YET.

It is also very important for you, Ballers19 to read and digest WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR. Any one could have reported you for editwarring on this article, and you would have been blocked from editing by an admin. Please take care not to edit like that in the future; come to the talk page and hear what other editors are saying and respect consensus before reinstating text that others have removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I understand completely how Wikipedia works. The information that is listed is correct and neutral. It only has that warning because some people were not comfortable with how the article has been for months. The infobox does not at all contain misleading information. I am still amused about why you have avoided the point I have made regarding the setup of the Guaido article in other languages. Whoever edits those pages, actually knows how to do it, and I give them credits. They are not worried about POV and neutrality, because their articles are already neutral with infoboxes. I have read everything already. However, my position will not be changed. Report me, block me, do what you feel is right, but Juan Guaido's article will remain formal and the information there shall not be changed. The information provided in the paragraphs and in the infobox is correct and not misleading whatsoever. No one has put labels on the Spanish articles because there is no reason to, nor is there a reason to have one here. There is no issue with neutrality nor is there one regarding Wikipedia's POV. Ballers19 (Talk) 22:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose infobox I like infoboxes, they have some good uses. This article and at this length doesn't need one, and if it's causing controversy, why would you add something unnecessary? Kingsif (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Samdasil97: most contributors here are against an infobox at the moment. Please read, and if you desire, also state your arguments on why we should bring an infobox back. --MaoGo (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC on Juan Guaido's wife

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Weak consensus for D. This was a difficult RfC to evaluate due to a variety of factors. A raw vote count is 3 for A, 4 for B, 5 for C and 5 for D, with a fair amount of overlap between A, C, and D voters. Additionally, D was the only option to gain support from both A/C and B voters (albeit only one such B voter, and a weak vote at that). Two of the votes for B are supported by very weak arguments(a plain ILIKEIT, and the bald assertion that B shows "both points of view" despite others' arguments to the contrary). Discounting these votes would change the count to be 3 v 2 v 5 v 5. The argument made by an A/C voter that B's sources do not mention Rosales appears to be addressed by the introduction of a different source; however, the argument that A and C are supported by sources stands. Ordinarily I think that this would too close to call, but the matter is further complicated by edits made by Saranoon on July 1st to add an option D, replace the wording in the lead with D, and move the former-status-quo B-wording to the article body. The fact that this change has been essentially uncontested by editors working on the article, in addition to D being the only option which has received support from A/C and B voters, as well as it tying for the top choice despite having been added a month after the RfC was opened (and thus potentially not having even been seen by earlier participants) leads me to conclude that there is a narrow consensus for D as a compromise over the other options. (non-admin closure) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

---

Which sentence more accurately reflects what is found in the reliable source(s) and follows our policy of neutral point view: RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC). --David Tornheim (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

(A) Fabiana Rosales is married to Juan Guaidó, who is head of Venezuela’s National Assembly and who declared himself interim president of Venezuela on 23 January 2019 (in opposition to President Nicolas Maduro) based on allegations that the May 2018 re-election of Maduro was illegitimate.

(B) Fabiana Rosales is married to Juan Guaidó, who is recognized by more than 50 governments as the acting President of Venezuela.

(B2) Fabiana Rosales is married to Juan Guaidó, who is recognized by more than 50 governments as the acting President of Venezuela.

(C) Fabiana Rosales is married to Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó.

(D) Fabiana Rosales is married to Venezuelan political leader Juan Guaidó, federal deputy of the National Assembly and a claimant to the country's disputed presidency in 2019.

(E) other -- feel free to add others

References

--David Tornheim (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC) [date of declaration as interim president of 23 January 2019 added to (A) per request by MaoGo below here].

I added (B alt) per suggestion below.--MaoGo (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Added option (C). R2 (bleep) 18:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Added option (D), originally by Saranoon--MaoGo (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Short Responses

• A or C. Reflects what is in the sources. Sources for (B) do not even mention wife. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC) [revised 18:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)]
• B is the status quo for which there are sources; see my discussion. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• C. I put "Fabiana Rosales" into Google News and looked at the first three reliable sources, all post-23 January 2019. [8][9][10] All described her the same way, as the wife of Venezuela's "opposition leader." Remember that this is an article about Rosales, not a coatrack about Guaido or the election. Additionally, though I'm certainly not accusing any editors of wrongdoing, excessive emphasis on a subject's husband might be seen as sexist. R2 (bleep) 18:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• B2 is just fine. (Waiting for a better wording). (B) is the right balance between vague (C) and overexplained (A). A merge between (A) and (B) may work also. --MaoGo (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

  D is weakly ok for me too. Though it is not clear which references go alongside it and it makes not indication of the "acting" presidency.--MaoGo (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• D This describes her husband's undisputed political importance and also his role in the current controversy. It provides enough information to invite further investigation by those interested in clicking on his link, while also avoiding the problem of throwing in a count of nations supporting his claim (which seems partisan). It also is worded in a way that doesn't require editing in 2020 if the dispute is settled without his ever becoming recognized by all Venezuela as the president.--Saranoon (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• B2 seems fine. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 06:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• A, C, or D. I oppose the B options; I agree with Saranoon that "throwing in a count of nations" is partisan, and I want to additionally note that we have moved away from doing so in the leads of other related articles, including the article on Guaidó himself. It is even less due here given that the article is not even about Guaidó; it's about his wife. The article should be about her and not a coatrack for Guaidó, per Ahrtoodeetoo above. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• B2, since it shows both points of view. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• A or D. A might be just too convoluted. B is way biased towards one side of the dispute. C omits the dispute, which could also be considered as biased to one side. --MarioGom (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
• C The count of nations thing is WP:WEASEL at this point, half a year on, Guaido is neither the de-facto nor the de-jure president of Venezuela. He has made a claim to presidency, and some diplomats have supported that claim, but that's irrelevant since presidency is generally regarded as an issue of national sovereignty. Frankly it doesn't matter what Canada thinks. Guaido doesn't have any of the powers of the president. Not in name and not in any sort of realpolitik fact. If C is not possible, A would be my second choice for the same reason. Simonm223 (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• C or D. The more than in B is POV (instead, how about: fewer than sixty; see what I mean?) and anyway, stating any number there along with the verb is has a WP:RELTIME problem. Mathglot (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

I will give my full response later today, but I want to quickly add that the phrase "who declared himself interim president of Venezuela" should be banned from all Wikipedia articles if the date is not included. Please change option (A) to: "Fabiana Rosales is married to Juan Guaidó, who is head of Venezuela’s National Assembly and who declared himself interim president of Venezuela on 23 January 2019 (in opposition to President Nicolas Maduro) based on allegations that the May 2018 re-election of Maduro was illegitimate."--MaoGo (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I made the change per your request. The date is not in the first source, but can be determined by following links from it, and I agree it does clarify it. As for a Wikiban that prohibits omission of the date, I'm not going to argue in favor of that. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) David Tornheim's choice is dishonest. B is in the present lede but is depicted here with two citations that don't mention the subject but only mention her husband's political position. This depiction might confuse editors into thinking that it's not a valid choice but anyone looking at the lede will see that the sentence continues "she is considered by the White House and the National Assembly of Venezuela as the First Lady of Venezuela" and there are two more citations about her. This sort of nonsense might be worked out at a drama board. This RfC need not exist since the subject has barely been discussed here. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: I take exception to your claim that I am "dishonest". Please remove it. If you have suggestions on improving the RfC, I am all ears. I already made accommodations to MaoGo.

I left out the other material about the White House to minimize the text that readers have to consider. I tried to take out the two citations (here and here) that are unnecessary and irrelevant because they do not mention Rosales--as you correctly notice--but they were restored by Jamez42 on the claim that such removal was "undue". I hoped non-involved editors like yourself would see the problem with using those two citations. Thank you for noticing. There are other similar problems with the Venezuela articles where the material in our article does not reflect the material in the sources. New eyes, like your own help make sure the material is properly sourced, rather than WP:OR and biased.

We have discussed some of these problems before on other articles that involve Guaido (e.g. Talk:Juan_Guaidó#Bias_not_yet_fixed, Talk:2019_Venezuelan_presidential_crisis#First_line_of_Lede) but the same involved editors want to call Guaido the "recognized" president of the Venezuela and focus on only the 50 countries that support him and leave out the 150 that do not and leave out the fact that the U.N. recognizes Maduro, in defiance of WP:NPOV. In fact, just yesterday, the U.S. just walked out of a U.N. meeting on arms control that is chaired by the Maduro government. The U.S. representative was angry that he the U.N. recognizes Maduro's government as the true government of Venezuela rather than the one the U.S. wishes to be in control.[11]. Our articles should not try to be a king-maker in this disagreement, but instead report what is in the WP:RS.

If you have any suggestions on how to improve this RfC, I am all ears. Calling me "dishonest" is not helpful. Please let's make concrete proposals on how we can make sure this article reflects what is in the WP:RS in an WP:NPOV fashion. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I would also like to add this source to (B): Venezuela’s top court seeks to strip Guaido’s legal immunity — raising fears of arrest CNBC. --MaoGo (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@MaoGo: Before making any further changes to the (A) or (B), I would like to see what Troutman proposes. I am open to adding the remainder of the sentence (which I had cut for simplicity):

...she is considered by the White House and the National Assembly of Venezuela as the First Lady of Venezuela.

References

This could be added to both (A) and (B). Another possibility is to simply provide this additional sentence as context, with the assumption that changing that sentence is not part of the input requested by this RfC.

Unfortunately, if this additional sentence is added, it adds two more sources for readers to deal with, creating additional complexity for their decision--which is why I did not include it in the first place. Until it is clear what Troutman is objecting to and how his objections might be addressed, I would prefer not to complicate things by adding any new sources to (A) or (B).

If you want to add an entry (C) that is exactly the same as (B), but includes the new source (and possibly also deletes one or both sources used in (B)), that's fine with me. You could do that immediately, and I have no problem with that. If so, please make an entry (D) for anyone else who wants a new option. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I think I might come up with a better proposal, but I am busy and I'm still undecided. About (C), I will insist on adding Nicolas Maduro somewhere ("opposition against X").--MaoGo (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Saranoon: to me it's ok your version but why avoid that she is recognized as first lady by some?--MaoGo (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  I just re-added that part and I'm leaving your edit as it is, but I think you should have waited for a larger consensus to be reached.--MaoGo (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  It's a bit disconcerting to see Wikipedians, at this juncture, trying to make Wikipedia push the fantasy that Guaido is anything other than an opposition leader. His attempt to assume the presidency failed. That's not WP:POV it's just what happened. We're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and I'd suggest those trying to oust Maduro via an encyclopedia are, at this point, trying to do just that. Simonm223 (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  Not only you're assuming bad faith, but you're also dismissing all of the arguments supporting Guaidó's legitimacy. At this point this doesn't have to do with him assuming the presidency, but his legitimacy claim. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  No, I just don't care about arguments supporting Guaido's legitimacy because, see, those arguments are not what Wikipedia is for. Again, please review WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The fact of the matter is that Guaido made a claim. Some governments supported that claim. Then he completely failed to secure any of the actual powers, duties or responsibilities of the presidency. That's not a POV, it's just the harsh reality of the situation. Guaido is not the de-facto president of Venezuela. He's not the de-jure president either as he's never stood for election. He's an opposition leader who made a claim to the presidency. That's the reality on the ground. That's what Wikipedia should be saying. All this oh but more than 50 countries WP:WEASEL nonsense. If I were really feeling pointy I'd change it to say "fewer than 60 out of 195 countries," in every instance. Because it's literally just as true. So my recommendation is to stop attempting to use Wikipedia to push your POV and if you really feel I've stepped over the WP:AGF line with these comments, well, you know the process for dealing with that. Simonm223 (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  The +50 countries phrase is not from Wikipedia but from reliable sources (Associated Press, Reuters, AFP, EFE). Please avoid the personal attacks, if you want something fixed then give us the exact location on the problem so we can discuss, general statements (accusations) hardly solve anything.--MaoGo (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cilia Flores

Can somebody add a word or two about Cilia Flores who is contesting the First Lady position? --MaoGo (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Contesting? She is the first lady, based on the fact that most governments and the U.N. recognize Maduro as President, something this article fails to state plainly. So, yes, indeed, we should state that there already is a first lady--the wife of the elected president. (If we put in the election was disputed and boycotted by the opposition, and that Guaido stood up and declared himself president, the opposition went along that, and the U.S. and 50 countries went along with that too, that's fine. But that doesn't make Guaido the "recognized" president or Rosales the "recognized first lady".) --David Tornheim (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The same can be said about Maduro, but there is no doubt that his presidency is contested, just like Flores' position is. Also, we've already gone through on how the elections were not simply "boycotted" and the rationale for the current dispute. I hope you have had the time to read it in the other talk page. --Jamez42 (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)