Talk:Pedro Carmona

message: There are some obvious phrasing errors here which are anti-U.S, anti-Carmona and pro-Chavez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.224.118 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 25 August 2005 UTC
:Agreed. Made an edit that should be more NPOV. Adding more biographical information (like that provided in the BBC Mundo article) would round this out some. Deadsalmon 20:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You make some good points, but I think it still doesn't reflect NPOV. You're correct in that there wasn't a provision in the Venz. constitution (both before and after revisions made by Chavez, to my knowledge) allowing the dissolution of Congress and other changes made by Carmona. However, the anti-Chavez camp would contend that Chavez's changes to the constitution were illegal in and of itself, and Carmona's actions were simply in the interest of undoing those changes. To look at it in another light, imagine the same situation in relation to the United States' revolution against British rule — nobody would contend that the creation of a new country was illegal in the eyes of the British government, but Americans would have a very different story on the "criminality" of the new constitution. Not a perfect parallel, of course, but you get my point. In any case, the wording needs to reflect a neutral point of view, so the interpretation of Carmona's actions by both sides should be included. By the way, the U.S. did not condemn the coup, per se, but rather the use of violence on the part of both parties. I don't think the wording has reflected that very well, both currently and prior to DanielM's revisions. Take a look at the official response; something mentioning the ambivalent response without such a condemnatory tone seems more appropriate. Deadsalmon 01:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I think removing the allegation of violating the constitution did the trick. You're right in saying that an interpretation belongs on another page (which already exists); as it is, the article seems fine to me. I'm removing the NPOV tag unless anyone objects. Deadsalmon 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Of course there was no coup, but complex politics and events in Venezuela defy explanation for the simple-minded and uninitiated.  The international press called it a coup, so a coup it must be on Wikipedia. Wiki relies on reliable sources, and there's no way around that problem:  it's verifiability, not truth, per WP:V.  We can probably thank the BBC for that word, as few other media outlets were even paying attention.  If Wikipedia were a print encyclopedia, with paid staff, these sorts of oversights would be fixed, but it's not.  Sandy 18:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Another issue here is whether a Coup d'état occured in Venezuela in 2002. Please refer to page 36 of the article in the following link: http://www.law.duke.edu/news/pdf/lawmagfall02.pdf and make your own conclusions. I strongly believe that no coup d'état occured then.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.248.230.172 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 28 August 2006 UTC
:Of course there was no coup, but complex politics and events in Venezuela defy explanation for the simple-minded and uninitiated.  The international press called it a coup, so a coup it must be on Wikipedia. Wiki relies on reliable sources, and there's no way around that problem:  it's verifiability, not truth, per WP:V.  We can probably thank the BBC for that word, as few other media outlets were even paying attention.  If Wikipedia were a print encyclopedia, with paid staff, these sorts of oversights would be fixed, but it's not.  Sandy 18:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coup

message: As President, Carmona was the Commander of the Armed Force and therefore responsible for military actions during his regime. I Propose to restore this paragraph:
During the short-lived government of Pedro Carmona, military officers held President Chavez for 36 hours against his will and attempted to force his exile. Additionally, security forces conducted raids without warrants and took some Chavez supporters into custody illegally, including National Assembly deputy Tarek William Saab, a member of the Chavez-aligned MVR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRSP (talk • contribs) 20:18, 2 August 2006 UTC
:That's a very interesting argument, since you cleansed all criticism from Hugo Chavez, claiming he (Chavez) wasn't responsible.  Do you have some reliable source which directly implicates Carmona? Chavez is undeniably in charge:  Carmona was dubiously in charge during a power vacuum.  How can you argue this one way with Carmona, and the other with Chavez? Sandy 20:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But Carmona made a decree stating that he was the president and the decree "Upheld all other laws both internal and international, as long as they do not disagree with the present Act". Therefore he was the Commander of the Armed Force...--JRSP 21:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sure.  Anyway, do you have a reliable source or not?   Sandy 21:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let us say that the source provided is not pro-Chávez --JRSP 02:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Responsibility of Carmona in HR violations

message: Please establish some relevance of this statement to Carmona.  The military officers are the ones who accepted Chavez's resignation *before* Carmona was sworn-in.  What does the military holding Chavez have to do with Carmona? 
:During the short-lived government of Pedro Carmona, military officers held President Chavez for 36 hours against his will and attempted to force his exile. Additionally, security forces conducted raids without warrants and took some Chavez supporters into custody illegally, including National Assembly deputy Tarek William Saab, a member of the Chavez-aligned MVR.
Sandy 02:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only report what the source says. If you have any questions, ask the source, not me JRSP 02:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice response.  You add content with no context, and then wait for others to do the work?  Sandy 03:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Establish relevance to Carmona

message: Carmona was never a president, because chavez never resigned his office. I think this article should be revised and corrected.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.155.7  (talk • contribs) 
Absolutely right, well spotted, I have fixed it, SqueakBox 00:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're going to need to make a much stronger case to introduce that kind of POV.  For example, some reliable sources, rather than original research.  Perez Jimenez wasn't "president" either; he was a dictator.   Sandy 00:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Anagnorisis, I know you were involved in some of Saravask's original work.  We're trying to figure out the whole mess, so we can fix it in all the templates and tables.  Do you know on what basis Octavio Lepage was left out of the List of Presidents of Venezuela, while Carmona was included?  That seems to be a contradiction, and it's not really explained in the sources or footnotes.  Sandy 01:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We discussed the issue here JRSP 01:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If you are thinking of him a president-in-charge (while he was minister of the interior) every time the president travelled abroad, then I do not think he should be in the list. Everytime the president went abroad, the minister of the interior would formally become president-in-charge during the time the president was actually away from Venezuela. This was kind of keeping the job for the president while he was away. This situation reverted automatically the moment the president returned to Venezuelan soil. This happened with all presidents. If Lepage was to be included (which I don't think he should) then many others should be included. However, if you think of him as president during the period he took over as a result of Perez being impeached, then I think he should be included. On that ocassion the minister of the interior did not take over (he could not), as the separation from the post was for a very different reason (minister wouldn't be keeping the post waiting for the president to come back) and of a very different nature. In this case the constitution (this was the old one, the one from 1961) made it so that the president of the congress would become interim president. However, most members of congres didn't want Lepage as president and thus after a couple of months elected Velasquez to become interim president. In this case I think Lepage could be in the list. Otherise, who would be listed as president of Venezuela between may and july 1993? Anagnorisis 01:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The old discussion pointed out by JRSP shows how Wiki has evolved.   Referencing requirements have gotten much tighter on Wiki, and the decisions taken there look rather informal, in retrospect (in other words, what we might call original research today, if the statements aren't referenced).  The References at the bottom of List of Presidents of Venezuela include one source that shows 40 presidents, one that shows 45, and one that shows 53 (all different ways of counting them).  It seems that Saravask's chart converted all of that information to 53 distinct presidential terms, vs. 40 or 45 distinct Presidents, and also showed the "interim" uncounted "caretaker" presidents, yet leaving out Lepage.  More info is better than less IMO, but whatever we do, we need to make our sources more clear, via better inline citations.  Anagnorisis, I'm not sure what your bottom line is?  Guess it's complex ... Sandy 01:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My bottom line is one of selecting a criteria and keeping to it. If we put all presidents, including interim ones, then Lepage should be in for the time he assumed constitutionally (like Velasquez did) following Perez impeachment. If Velasquez is, Lepage should be. If Velasquez is not, then Lepage should not be. Anagnorisis 17:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carmona is far from have being been a president 

message: Wiki reports according to reliable sources.  The idea that Carmona wasn't President of Venezuela — regardless of circumstances — is original research and POV.  Multiple reliable sources report that Carmona was interim president.  Please do not delete referenced content; inserting original research and POV is against Wiki polices of WP:V and WP:NPOV, and can be considered vandalism.  Sandy 21:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable sources say he was President;  Please refrain from deleting referenced content, as this can be considered vandalism.  Sandy 22:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The references are where they are supposed to be:  in the article, where you keep reverting them.  They are also on the List of Presidents of Venezuela, where the distinctions about the nature of Carmona's interim presidency are made clear.  Wiki reports according to reliable sources, not according to original research or how you want the world to be.  According to all reputable news media sources, Pedro Carmona was President, regardless of the circumstances.  We don't rewrite history on Wiki; we report it.  You have repeatedly deleted referenced sources, and inserted original research with no references.  Please stop, or it can be considered vandalism. Of course the NA didn't recognize Carmona:  he fired them.   Sandy 01:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Clearly, Carmona was not a de jure president. Now, to claim he was a de facto president we must show he was able to control the country but IMO he could not. There has been similar cases, for instance, Lady Jane Grey was Queen of England or not? JRSP 01:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither de jure or de facto are the issue:  in fact, wasn't it you, JRSP, who inserted one of those words (I don't recall)?  He was an interim president.  De jure, de facto, you all can argue that all day, but he was a president.  I don't really care what adjectives you add, though.  Do you want to use de factor, de jure, or what?  I was pretty sure those were your insertions, where all I put was interim.  SqueakBox is trying to delete that he was a president at all, even though the circumstances are explained in the List of Presidents, and every reliable source says he was President, like it or not. Sandy 01:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it is not a POV conflict:  you are deleting referenced content, and inserting original research and POV.  That is a violation of policy. If you want to be taken seriously, you should have addressed the concerns on the talk page, and read the references, before deleting referenced content and inserting original research. I am not shouting vandalism at the first sign of something:  you reverted referenced content and inserted origiinal research several times, without a reasonable talk page discussion.  It is not good faith for you to start changing long-standing templates on Wiki with no prior discussion, as you are deleting Carmona as president in 3 different places.  Sandy 01:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that labeling editors as "vandals", "disruptive",etc sounds as a "shoot the messanger" trick to diminish those with alternate points of view (see ,,) JRSP 12:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It appears that that website cannot count. I counted 50 presidents there, but  counts 61. So... either Wikipedia is stating that there are eleven "presidents of VE" when there wasn't, or that site is censoring facts and not telling the true story. That is not reliable. And it even isn't in English. Iolakana|T 11:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The list provided by DanielM seems to be a pre-1999 constitution list considering the 1999-2004 term. However, I think DanielM has a point when he states the importance of recognition by other states, UN and OAS. As far as I know none of them recognized Carmona as president JRSP 18:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Daniel, self-published websites are not reliable sources.  If you all provide here some reliable sources which discuss the POV that Carmona was not President, I will incorporate that info into the text.  Wikipedia reports based on WP:V and WP:RS, and avoids original research.  We can discuss the alternate points of view, within the allowance for due weight.  What we can't due is ignore the mainstream media (reliably-sourced) accounts that he was, albeit briefly, President.  Unless you have reliable sources upon which we can base alternate text, there is no reason for a POV tag on this article.  SqueakBox, please refrain from personal comments and personal attacks:  your version was a violation of WP:BLP, and did not conform to WP:V or WP:NPOV.  If you will provide reliable sources which present an alternate view, it can be incorporated into the text, but individual editors can't rewrite history as told by reliable sources.  JRSP, if you have reliable sources for the info you want to include, I'll be glad to write the text presenting the alternate view. Sandy 18:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps the opinion of the National Assembly of Venezuela could help us in this issue  JRSP 19:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So Wikipedia is lying? Iolakana|T 11:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A virtual libary is not a reliable source.  The BBC is by no means the only source which says Carmona was president:  it is merely easy to locate.  Daniel, perhaps you misread.  I told you the sources were also included in the List of Presidents article.  Squeak, you have included one biased source: of course the government which he dismissed refused to recognize him.  Please provide high-quality reliable sources upon which text can be based.  For example, media accounts of the issues JRSP raises would be sufficient to include the alternate point of view.  Please review WP:V and WP:RS.  Thanks, Sandy 19:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You are still not understanding WP:V and WP:RS.  Please provice a reliable source that says he was not President, and that view can be presented (without undue weight) as an alternative view, within the text.  Sandy 19:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Erm... Yes they do. "Mr Carmona proclaimed himself president after violent anti-government protests which resulted in 17 deaths." (first source) and "Pedro Carmona, the Venezuelan businessman who briefly replaced President Hugo Chavez" (second) both state, in one way or another, that he was president. I hope I do not have to file a RFC on this article just because you don't seem to understand the term "president of VE". As of just now, the article is protected. Iolakana|T 19:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Back to the point: Apart from not being recognized as president neither by the national assembly, nor by any country in the world, UN or OAS; Carmona never appointed a full cabinet JRSP 20:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, JRSP, I take it that you have no reliable sources, since you've provided none?  (How can you appoint a cabinet in two days?)  Sandy 20:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not feel it is so. You're false facts... are... quite simply... false. Anyway, obviouslt the UN is not always up-to-date with VE. If Junichiro Koizumi resigned and someone else became prime minister, would the UN know in several minutes of this happening? Of course not. Iolakana|T 20:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know if a media report would be a valid source in this case. When someone that is not in the constitutional line of succesion and without a presidential resignation claims himself to be the president, this is an extraordinary claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. I don't think the BBC has more authority than the National Assembly of Venezuela on deciding who is President of Venezuela JRSP 20:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Original research:  he didn't install himself.  Please provide some sources !!! Sandy 20:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps you should provide us Chávez letter of resignation, Sandy JRSP 20:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Primary sources are not used as reliable sources on Wikipedia.  Please provide a reliable source, JRSP, and we can incorporate the text which states that some believe Chavez never resigned. (By the way, have you not seen the transcripts of Chavez's statements while he was at Fuerte Tiuna?  If you want primary sources, that's one.) Sandy 20:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And some specific sources that deal with this issue and claim he is President. The BBC were probably mistaken and are a pathetic source for an extremist claim (that he was President) as all we really have is that Carmona claims he was President. To claim that anyone opposing his claim is guilty of vandalsim is an abuse of this encyclopedia, SqueakBox 20:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The burden of proof is on those claiming Carmona was the president. Show us the resignation letter, please JRSP 21:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The burden of proof is to provide reliable sources, not primary soruce documents.  The article has four BBC sources, and you have presented nothing which refutes the information.  Here are more. Latin Business Chronicle, PBS, CNN,CNN  Sandy 21:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  And, a transcript of Chavez's comments while being held by the military.  Sandy 21:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Please read WP:V and WP:RS.  Info boxes on Wikipedia are not reliable sources.  Please note that the text in the Hugo Chávez article is accurate, even if the situation is too complex to present in the presidential info box.  There are about twelve sources now which state Carmona was interim president, very reliable. Sandy 23:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One of the sources claims that Carmona was president for less than 24 hours while the article says he was president for 36h... JRSP 23:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And ?  Sandy 23:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Sandy and enano on this one.  There are various secondary sources stating that he was in fact an interim president.  Did we all of the sudden forget WP:V and all that talk about primary and secondary sources??  Spaceriqui 23:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is that an usually reliable source needs not be reliable for anything. For instance, in scientific matters WP:RS says ordinary press should be avoided as source JRSP 13:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Except Dewey was never a president. Thomas_Dewey#Election_of_1948. That headline was speculated based on "miscalculations by pollsters and the press". --enano (Talk) 22:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References, original research, and POV

message: I see a number of statements above that don't take into account the problems with counting presidents, presidential terms, and succession order in Venezuelan presidents.  Please read the discussion at Talk:List of Presidents of Venezuela.  We need to get this right, rather than willy nilly deleting and changing information that is covered in a number of places.  Because of the complexity of its history with respect to presidential succession, the table at Lists presents three different ways of counting presidents in Venezuela.  Venezuela does not have clean, well-numbered lines of succession as, for example, the USA does.  For example, there is a certain number of people who were President, and another number of presidential terms, as well as a number of "caretaker" "Presidents" in between.  The List reflects all of those.  SqueakBox should rest assured that Carmona, Cabello, and all of the other "interim" or "caretaker" presidents are not included in the tally of 53, but they are included to show a historical record that "something" happened there.  The goal is to inform the Wiki reader via reliable sources.  Can we please work together on this, rather than deleting material which was carefully constructed by prior editors?  Deletionist editing without reviewing all of the issues and building consensus with all of the editors just creates extra work for everyone and foments discord.  There is a long history around these articles and templates:  let's figure it out, work together, and make any changes needed only once, after building consensus.  Sandy 13:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding confusion in presidential succession numbers 

message: A good place to start building consensus would be to unlock the article and restore the NPOV tag, without this I dont see how any consensus can be built as consensus requires good faith on all sides and one side on this argument is not showing it. This is the US version of history and not a credible encyclopedia article, SqueakBox 17:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should we? Not until it is stable and everyone agrees, including you; because if I un-protect it right now then you will just do what you done and insert your "sources" and remove the infobox. So, I assume you wish to make a poll; something along the lines of:
*Those who agree to keep the infobox and actually tell the facts that he was president, or
*Those who seem to think that Pedro was not a president and remove the infobox? Iolakana|T 18:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Cabello, Carmona, Lepage, and a whole host of older interim or caretaker or "whatever" presidents.  Squeak, anytime you want to start working on this, I have a number of proposals and compromises I can type up on the Lists talk page.  It will take some work to get this right throughout Wiki, and I don't want to undertake the work if you're not on board.  Sandy 22:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus

message: Getting down to resolve this dispute: How can we resolve it? Perhaps Pedro Carmona/temp is what we are looking for. I have removed, on the temp version, things about raided house illegaly because there were no sources cited for them. Obviously, some people (weasel word) still think that he was not president, but this is not backed up with sources. So, is the temp fine? Or are there still further edits needed to it? Iolakana•T 14:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure we can resolve the dispute by looking only at this article.  To me, the whole problem involves two much bigger issues:  1) the problems at List of Presidents of Venezuela, and the construct of introducing Presidential infoboxes into articles about a country without clear lines of presidential succession.  Those bigger issues need to be resolved, and with SqueakBox blocked for an extended period, we may just see problems resurface when he's back.  The real problem at the end of the day is going to be what to do with the presidential infoboxes, and we need to decide that across all Presidents, not just the Carmona situation.  As to the changes you made in Sandbox, there's no diff there, so I'm not sure what you've done.  I find it helpful to first place the current content in a sandbox, then make the changes, so we can see what you changed.  Sandy 14:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, yes, I never changed very much because the article currently is what it should be. So, where should the discussion be about presidents of all countries. Iolakana•T 15:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking we should tackle the bigger problem at List of Presidents of Venezuela, which is where the problems originate.  By first addressing a number of issues there, we can hopefully come to some consensus about what to do about Presidential infoboxes, which is the problem here.  Sandy 15:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Sandy. We need to look at the bigger picture: the List of Presidents. Similar situations have happened in the history of Venezuela and we have to be consistent JRSP 16:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JRSP, I have been hesitatnt to take this on, as it will be such a big problem.  To cut to the chase, my (preliminary) recommendation is that we try to develop consensus to 1) get rid of all numbering in the  Presidential list (lose the 53, which makes no sense), 2) indicate all people who served (even under controversial circumstances) in the list, but indicating controversy with footnotes, 3) include everyone in the template (both of these include, for example, Carmona and LePage), but 4) reserve Presidential infoboxes for only those who ... I don't know how to define it ... were more "traditionally" named.  In other words, no presidential infobox for Carmona, which helps us avoid that whole problem of line of succession, dates, order of succession, etc., while still making mention in the List and template, with footnotes for clarity.  Chavez's infobox would be footnoted, to make mention of a "disruption" in order of succession on April 11-14.  Some will object to this, as it lowers Carmona's standing as President, and is biased towards a pro-Chavez view.  But we need to compromise somewhere, or this problem will never end.  Do you think consensus and compromise along these lines will be attainable ???  I fear not, so am not sure I want to take this on.  Can we find historical precedents to justify this approach ?  Sandy 17:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anyway we should move the debate to List of Presidents of Venezuela. Perhaps we could also try to contact some wikipedian/s with expertise in History JRSP 22:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know of any Venezuela Wikipedian historians.  I could check with lots of the folks on the Military History Project, as they do lots of bios of people around the world, and may have encountered similar situations.  I'm expecting this project to be long and arduous, and not anxious to undertake it right now.  How about October ?  Sandy 23:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, in fact I would prefer a non-Venezuelan to avoid POV JRSP 23:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here's a list of the History WikiProjects.] Most of them are inactive.  The only active group — and they are very active, I see them all the time on FAC and FAR — are the Military History guys. I could query them.  I thought of looking at Italy, and found that they do have a somewhat similar situation (that is, no numbers, lots of footnotes):  List of Presidents of the Italian Republic.  But, they use presidential infoboxes, too.  Sandy 00:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Resolving this dispute

message: Since years this article states that Pedro Carmona was once President of Venezuela. A total ridicoules claim.
If you exclude hereditary or similar transition of power (such as by testament, see Pergamon etc.) there are only two possible ways to get president of a nation, or in other words "head of state". The WP is quite clear on this definitions (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head of state)
The first way is quite common: You win elections according to the laws and traditions of the said country and you get recognized by the political bodies of the state you´re "presiding". This is in every single case accompanied by rituals/inaugurations where the major players in the political game are present. The general acceptance of your status by the society you presiding is the legitimitaion for your title and comes through the law. This is basically the same if you get the presidency by succesion according the constitution because of death or resignation of the previous person in office. 
The second way isn´t that usual but there are several quite famous cases: You achieve dictatorial power within a country and after its consolidation you claim yourself President, neglecting the previous legal frameworks and replacing them with new ones. It is actually quite controversial if people of this type are real presidents (or in other words: if dictators can be presidents). Famous "presidents" in this way were or are: Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Pervez Musharraf, Abdel Nasser, Idi Amin, Francesco Franco, Kim Jong Il (actually he is it still, even he is dead) and others. The only legitimation for your title in this case is the power you have, especially because you can´t use the law you broke to legitimate yourself. This is the reason why most of those "presidents" search possibilities to achieve aswell a societal/law based legitimation by national (manipulated) elections.
So lets face the facts
-> To be called "officially" or in other words by law "President" you need the approval of the major political players. You can´t just proclaim yourself president by decree ignoring the established constitution and then claim that the state you wanted to control call you a former president after you failed to change its laws. This would be ridicoulus. 
-> To be called president "by history" you would need the attributes attached to this term. You would need to have been the head of state of a country and fulfill the role of a president to get this label attached.
Carmona for sure fails the first option. There was never a for this entitled political institution inside Venezuela which called him president and there is no one now. Officially, Carmona was never president of Venezuela (Only fools could dispute that).
But of course still Carmona could still be called president by the WP if he actually would have been one (But we would never call a demissioned or dead dictator a president after he left office, would we, so Carmona would need to have been a president, not just a representative of a Junta or a dictator). But Carmona never had executive Power inside Venezuela nor the recognition by other countries or international organizations what means executive power outside Venezuela. He only squated the presidential palace and broadcasted some speeches on television, this is no de facto presidency. So, in reality, Carmona was never a head of state and therefore never the president of Venezuela.
That Wikipedia actually tolerates this kindergarden-play to call that guy a "president" and to include him in Lists etc. is a sad thing. Just watch the talk-round broadcasted by pro-Coup-forces after the overtaking of the presidential palace. Carmona and his friends believed, they achieved control, but they never did. 83.180.231.8 03:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. Carmona was not President in my view. DanielM 22:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100% (and I am no fan of Chavez) but a great respecter of sovereign governments. I got endless bad faith accusations saying this in the articel months ago eg  and , SqueakBox 23:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are saying that Carmona was not president (by removing the presidential infobox), then why does the article's second sentence say he is (with six refs (with four of them from the BBC), no less)? How are these things reconciled? Saravask 00:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: At least one of those references does not refer to Carmona as president. If you search BBC for more recent reference to Carmona you will find a timeline http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/country_profiles/1229348.stm that refers to him but does not use the term president. I think we should consider the possibility that media accounts at the time of the coup were incorrect in referring to Carmona as president. DanielM 10:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then shouldn't the phrase "occupied the office of President" be removed? Saravask 18:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read four of them. They call him a "caretaker president" or "interim president". Maybe we should make that distinction here. Saravask 18:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current version is fine, ie no President infobox and stating that he was briefly declared President, SqueakBox 18:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also think present version reads fine. If we put Carmona in the List of Presidents of Venezuela we would have to dig in XIX century Venezuelan history to look for all "presidents for a day", a situation that has happened before. I think we should only include legal (de iure) presidents and those who illegally but effectively took control of the power (de facto). JRSP 22:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For sure not President of Venezuela 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion