Talk:Carmona Decree

message: Forgive the anon post, but I was just perusing and had a quick note about the use of non-english sources.  While I agree that when working in the english section of wikipedia it is advantageous to use english sources (for obvious reasons, no?) the issue is more complicated than that.  There are many events that have happened around the world that simply have no reportage in english.  Should we consider that as far as the english wiki is concerned that these events never happened?  I of course  support a continued search for english sources.  Also, translations bring up the issue of original research, a rule I have never been comfortable with as all wiki articles represent original research.  But that is a discussion for another time.  Again, forgive the intrusion.≈≈≈≈
:Actually It would not surprise me that at any moment the translation will be labelled as originial research, nevermind the past history of translating out of context quotes. One of the goals of Wikipedia is removing regional bias indeed.Flanker 19:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish sources 

message: I cannot believe the suspension of the Supreme court was deleted because the BBC article omitted it, seriously the document is right there! anyhow I added a source specifying the Supreme Court directly.Flanker 03:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is held to a more rigourous standard than BLP 

message: I don't claim to be an expert, but it seems a clearer translation would be "Constitutional Act of the Democratic Transition and National Unity Government" rather than "Act of the constitution of the Democratic Transition and National Unity Government." Or is that the way it's supposed to be interpreted? Cheezmeister 21:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I googled "Act of the Constitution" and got several hits: Act of the Const. of Tonga, Slovenia, Bulgaria, etc. JRSP 21:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a translator (although I don't do the Spanish-English pair) I would give Act of constitution, absent a standard or official translation—had the original been Acta constituyente I might be persuaded otherwise. "Acta de constitución" is, AFAIK, a pretty standard term in corporate law, equivalent to the English "Articles of Incorporation". I wish we had an official translation, though. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I should have realized this sooner, as its a biased source added by a pro-Chavez editor; the C is capitalized, and the source apparently de-capitalized it to de-emphasize any constitutionality.    The entire text should be checked, as it could be wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW: I'd render it "Act Constituting the Government of Democratic Transition and National Unity " -- even tho' it's more of a "deed establishing" or an "agreement creating", it's probably healthier not to stray too far from the Spanish/English cognates if all we're doing is giving gloss of the original name for understanding's sake. Also, I'd change the order of the 'government' and its qualifiers, because the first time I read it I falied to parse "democratic transition" as a compound modifier. All this in the absence of a (good) official translation, of course. YMMV, HTH, and YAFTD ("You Are Free To Disagree"). Bolivian Unicyclist 22:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Part II: Re the capitalization of Constitutcn: good catch. Yes, the Spanish name did look wrong. Bolivian Unicyclist 22:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Official name in English

message: Within the Act, the basis for the formation of a transitional government is delineated, citing the Constitution of Venezuela. The Act principally cites Article 350 of the Constitution, which says the People of Venezuela shall disown any regime, legislation or authority that violates democratic values, principles and guarantees or encroaches upon human rights.Venezuela Analitica (Analitica 2002). Acta de constitución del Gobierno de Transición Democrática y Unidad Nacional Retrieved 24 Jul 2006   It also cites violations by the Chávez administration of Articles 43, 57, 58, 68, 136, 141, 145, 204, 211, 254, 270, 273, 279, 294, 295 and 328 of the Constitution, and it references the Democratic Charter  of the Organization of American States and Chávez's resignation the day before. 
Remembering the date of April 11, 2002 "with profound indignation and national mourning," it accuses the government of Chávez of: 
*Attacking, repressing, and assassinating innocent peaceful demonstrators.
*Compromising democratic principles, particularly representative democracy.
*Human and property rights violations.
*Flagrant violation of separation and independence of powers.
*Corruption.
*Misuse of the armed forces.
*Promoting a climate of social violence.
*Unacceptable isolationist foreign policy, aiding Colombian guerrillas.
*Eliminating autonomy of the electoral process.
*Enacting an enabling act without consulting the electorate.
*Promoting violence via its Bolivarian Circles.
*Disrespecting institutions necessary for peaceful democratic coexistence.
: ...and all of this says nothing about why Pedro Carmona should attain the presidency, or what basis he would have for abolishing ALL of Venezuela's democratic institutions, not merely a few of the last President's cronies.
:Nor does it say how any of this relates to calling it the "Carmona Decree". The term is not inherently demeaning -- all it means is something ordered by Carmona -- and it's by far the most common term used to refer to this law.
:As with other Venezuela articles, pro-opposition editors seem unwilling to seperate their hate for Bolivarianism from matters of objective fact that don't even really relate to it. Isn't it possible to be anti-Chavez without believing that the opposition is always saintly and the government is always Satanic?Eleland 06:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clauses 

message: Ok, considering the original move was made without consensus, I reverted to the original title. We can discuss from this point. JRSP 09:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted title 

message: In English we do not use the definite article "the" in titles. So the article is "World War II" not "The World War II", etc. This page should be at Carmona Decree. Eleland 12:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with removing "the". However, as there is an ongoing dispute, I preferred reverting to the original title considering the initial move was made without discussion. JRSP 12:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I couldn't move to Carmona Decree. It seems we'll have to ask an admin to move it or list it at WP:Requested moves.--JRSP 22:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The" Carrmona Decree 

message: Following the "potentially controversial" procedure just in case someone has some objections. JRSP 01:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: The short Background-section is clear POV. The events providing a good oppurtinity to carry out a long before prepared plan are presented as motivation for the coup, the "violence"-part looks like Chavez was responsible for it, even it is clearly sorted out now, that it was neither in his power (the armed forces involved in the incidents were under control of the oppositional major of Caracas) nor did he verbaly encourage use of violence. 
The hole thing is spin, a shame, actually 83.180.231.8 01:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background ->POV 

message: A section naming the signatories would be helpful. Many recent (2/2014) articles state that Leopoldo Lopez signed it, but his English page explicitly says he did not (though the talk page says his [grand?]father did). 67.180.84.49 (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signatories 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Carmona Decree. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520060113/http://www.globovision.com/news.php?nid=36697 to http://www.globovision.com/news.php?nid=36697
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Carmona Decree. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100102054750/http://www.analitica.com/bitblio/carmona_estanga/decreto1.asp to http://www.analitica.com/Bitblio/carmona_estanga/decreto1.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100102054750/http://www.analitica.com/bitblio/carmona_estanga/decreto1.asp to http://www.analitica.com/Bitblio/carmona_estanga/decreto1.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100102054750/http://www.analitica.com/bitblio/carmona_estanga/decreto1.asp to http://www.analitica.com/bitblio/carmona_estanga/decreto1.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified