This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | A news item involving 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 7 December 2022. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
Elelch, please explain your edits that are placing back dated information (including the old title). WMrapids ( talk) 01:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
You keep trying to skew the article. The decision of the constitutional court on the powers of Congress has nothing to do with this article (it could fit in the article of Peruvian political crisis 2017–present, not here). The worst thing is that it is even a false assertion, since the decision of the peruvian constitutional court refers only to the powers of congress to designate some positions (as the ombudsman), not to give absolute control of the government as you wrongly indicate. As for the Constituent Assembly, there is a much more reliable source that indicates that the majority of Peruvians oppose it. The survey that you insist on referring to, was made only by telephone, an unreliable methodology, versus another that has been carried out at a national level with personal interviews that says the opposite. But the most important thing is the underlying issue, which is the change of constitution (which was the declared Pedro Castillo's goal) and on this point all the surveys (including the one you quote) indicate that at no time did the majority of Peruvians agree by changing the current constitution. So, what you are trying to put on the article tries to bias it to make the reader believe that one of Pedro Castillo's objectives (change of constitution) had majority support, when reliable sources indicate that this is not the case. Also, you do not explain why you want to delete a duly referenced paragraph on the situation of Pedro Castillo's prison as a consequence of the coup attempt, relevant information directly related to this article.-- Elelch ( talk) 14:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
"Castillo has been placed in "preventive detention" for 18 months and faces trial for rebellion and conspiracy"is still present in the introduction. Is that what you meant? Also, you keep placing in two "Background" sections with your revert edits. Please be more mindful of your edits. WMrapids ( talk) 18:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
The reliable sources that you are eliminating clearly indicate that the majority of Peruvians are not in favor of a constituent assembly, let alone a new constitution. It is not logical that you edit saying otherwise. In addition, the final referenced paragraph that you are removing does not repeat information, but rather provides the final status of Castillo's prison order after the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal. Finally, the ruling of the Peruvian constitutional court on the appointment of the ombudsman and the reorganization of SUNEDU has nothing to do here. The problem regarding the appointment of the ombudsman (and the legislation about SUNEDU) was a dispute between Congress and the judiciary, where Pedro Castillo had nothing to do with it (even the executive branch has no prerogative in the appointment of the Ombudsman). Therefore, there is no reason to place that information in an this article. Before editing, check the direct source, which is the court ruling that you can see here.-- Elelch ( talk) 18:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Although I agree on certain things, I find myself again in need of neutralizing certain statements that try to bias the content:
I think that in this way the text is better balanced and bias is avoided.-- Elelch ( talk) 17:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
"calls for the creation of a constituent assembly had existed since the 2020 Peruvian protests" is misleading
[Motion of confidence] paragraph is deleted
the paragraph related to the ruling of the Constitutional Court on the powers of Congress to designate certain officials has no relation to this article
Please avoid editing by deleting all the improvements I've made without even reading them.
Your actions unfortunately reveal a bias in favor of Pedro Castillo (from your tenacious defense so that the title of the article does not mention the word coup). I agree that Castillo's point of view should be shown, and in fact the article does so in multiple sections, but you can't remove referenced information that doesn't favor him. The idea is that both are displayed so that the text is balanced and as neutral as possible. That's what I'm trying to achieve with my improvements, but unfortunately you insist on putting wrong information back. Please before editing discuss it here first..-- Elelch ( talk) 22:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Besides the removed mentioned content, including the corruption investigations as a reason for the dissolvement, there also appears to be original research in the last edits, including the description of the Congress with a "far-right majority", whereas this doesn't appear anywhere in the cited references and the far-right party Popular Force only has 23 seats out of 130. The stable version of the introduction should remain, and further changes be discussed from there. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 10:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC) -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 10:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Pinging @ Aréat and Elelch: so they can better explain their disagreement with the last changes to the introduction. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 09:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
A Third Opinion has been requested. There is now a third editor involved in this discussion. The statements by both of the original editors are so long that a third opinion would have had to ask the two editors for concise summaries, so concise summaries will still be a good idea. Overly long statements often do not clarify the issues, even if they make the poster feel better. Resume discussion. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
How should the introduction of the article be presented?
WMrapids ( talk) 02:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment: Peru-related articles have been contentious lately, so in order to establish a consensus, I present another RfC in an effort to avoid further conflict.
The opinion of opposition to the current version is:
The opinion of support the current version is:
Lastly, if there are any suggestions to improve the current introduction, it would be greatly appreciated!-- WMrapids ( talk) 02:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Blindlynx:, @ Braganza:, @ Alcibiades979:, @ Elelch:, @ Yilku1:, @ StellarHalo:, @ Amakuru:, @ Carlp941:, @ CMD:, @ C.J Griffin:, @ Snarcky1996: : an opinion?-- Aréat ( talk) 20:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
"Attorney General of Peru Patricia Benavides, ... had previously said that Castillo was the head of a criminal organization and called on Congress to remove him from office, with legislators then attempting a third impeachment of Castillo".Also, it should be "alleged corruption" as these are just allegations, so Option 2 has some biased wording issues. WMrapids ( talk) 06:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
It is a fact that he is no longer president of Peru. That said what's worse is that this link redirects to the international recognition, which is entirely irrelevant: Venezuela doesn't choose the President of Peru nor does Colombia, Brazil or Mexico. Peru chooses the president of Peru. So even if this must stay it should redirect to a domestic Peruvian interpretation of the events where it can include something like Pedro Castillo's politcal party's opinion but not an international recognition map. 93.56.221.236 ( talk) 09:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
The third paragraph in the introduction seems to include an opinion and doesn't use neutral phrasing. The claim that the Constitutional Court exists to serve the Legislature is based on a dubious foundation and is heavily based on claims from the supporters of Castillo Sng2011 ( talk) 06:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | A news item involving 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 7 December 2022. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
Elelch, please explain your edits that are placing back dated information (including the old title). WMrapids ( talk) 01:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
You keep trying to skew the article. The decision of the constitutional court on the powers of Congress has nothing to do with this article (it could fit in the article of Peruvian political crisis 2017–present, not here). The worst thing is that it is even a false assertion, since the decision of the peruvian constitutional court refers only to the powers of congress to designate some positions (as the ombudsman), not to give absolute control of the government as you wrongly indicate. As for the Constituent Assembly, there is a much more reliable source that indicates that the majority of Peruvians oppose it. The survey that you insist on referring to, was made only by telephone, an unreliable methodology, versus another that has been carried out at a national level with personal interviews that says the opposite. But the most important thing is the underlying issue, which is the change of constitution (which was the declared Pedro Castillo's goal) and on this point all the surveys (including the one you quote) indicate that at no time did the majority of Peruvians agree by changing the current constitution. So, what you are trying to put on the article tries to bias it to make the reader believe that one of Pedro Castillo's objectives (change of constitution) had majority support, when reliable sources indicate that this is not the case. Also, you do not explain why you want to delete a duly referenced paragraph on the situation of Pedro Castillo's prison as a consequence of the coup attempt, relevant information directly related to this article.-- Elelch ( talk) 14:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
"Castillo has been placed in "preventive detention" for 18 months and faces trial for rebellion and conspiracy"is still present in the introduction. Is that what you meant? Also, you keep placing in two "Background" sections with your revert edits. Please be more mindful of your edits. WMrapids ( talk) 18:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
The reliable sources that you are eliminating clearly indicate that the majority of Peruvians are not in favor of a constituent assembly, let alone a new constitution. It is not logical that you edit saying otherwise. In addition, the final referenced paragraph that you are removing does not repeat information, but rather provides the final status of Castillo's prison order after the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal. Finally, the ruling of the Peruvian constitutional court on the appointment of the ombudsman and the reorganization of SUNEDU has nothing to do here. The problem regarding the appointment of the ombudsman (and the legislation about SUNEDU) was a dispute between Congress and the judiciary, where Pedro Castillo had nothing to do with it (even the executive branch has no prerogative in the appointment of the Ombudsman). Therefore, there is no reason to place that information in an this article. Before editing, check the direct source, which is the court ruling that you can see here.-- Elelch ( talk) 18:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Although I agree on certain things, I find myself again in need of neutralizing certain statements that try to bias the content:
I think that in this way the text is better balanced and bias is avoided.-- Elelch ( talk) 17:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
"calls for the creation of a constituent assembly had existed since the 2020 Peruvian protests" is misleading
[Motion of confidence] paragraph is deleted
the paragraph related to the ruling of the Constitutional Court on the powers of Congress to designate certain officials has no relation to this article
Please avoid editing by deleting all the improvements I've made without even reading them.
Your actions unfortunately reveal a bias in favor of Pedro Castillo (from your tenacious defense so that the title of the article does not mention the word coup). I agree that Castillo's point of view should be shown, and in fact the article does so in multiple sections, but you can't remove referenced information that doesn't favor him. The idea is that both are displayed so that the text is balanced and as neutral as possible. That's what I'm trying to achieve with my improvements, but unfortunately you insist on putting wrong information back. Please before editing discuss it here first..-- Elelch ( talk) 22:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Besides the removed mentioned content, including the corruption investigations as a reason for the dissolvement, there also appears to be original research in the last edits, including the description of the Congress with a "far-right majority", whereas this doesn't appear anywhere in the cited references and the far-right party Popular Force only has 23 seats out of 130. The stable version of the introduction should remain, and further changes be discussed from there. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 10:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC) -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 10:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Pinging @ Aréat and Elelch: so they can better explain their disagreement with the last changes to the introduction. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 09:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
A Third Opinion has been requested. There is now a third editor involved in this discussion. The statements by both of the original editors are so long that a third opinion would have had to ask the two editors for concise summaries, so concise summaries will still be a good idea. Overly long statements often do not clarify the issues, even if they make the poster feel better. Resume discussion. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
How should the introduction of the article be presented?
WMrapids ( talk) 02:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment: Peru-related articles have been contentious lately, so in order to establish a consensus, I present another RfC in an effort to avoid further conflict.
The opinion of opposition to the current version is:
The opinion of support the current version is:
Lastly, if there are any suggestions to improve the current introduction, it would be greatly appreciated!-- WMrapids ( talk) 02:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Blindlynx:, @ Braganza:, @ Alcibiades979:, @ Elelch:, @ Yilku1:, @ StellarHalo:, @ Amakuru:, @ Carlp941:, @ CMD:, @ C.J Griffin:, @ Snarcky1996: : an opinion?-- Aréat ( talk) 20:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
"Attorney General of Peru Patricia Benavides, ... had previously said that Castillo was the head of a criminal organization and called on Congress to remove him from office, with legislators then attempting a third impeachment of Castillo".Also, it should be "alleged corruption" as these are just allegations, so Option 2 has some biased wording issues. WMrapids ( talk) 06:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
It is a fact that he is no longer president of Peru. That said what's worse is that this link redirects to the international recognition, which is entirely irrelevant: Venezuela doesn't choose the President of Peru nor does Colombia, Brazil or Mexico. Peru chooses the president of Peru. So even if this must stay it should redirect to a domestic Peruvian interpretation of the events where it can include something like Pedro Castillo's politcal party's opinion but not an international recognition map. 93.56.221.236 ( talk) 09:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
The third paragraph in the introduction seems to include an opinion and doesn't use neutral phrasing. The claim that the Constitutional Court exists to serve the Legislature is based on a dubious foundation and is heavily based on claims from the supporters of Castillo Sng2011 ( talk) 06:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)