Talk:2017 Paraguayan crisis

This is not, repeat not, a coup d'état

The opposition characterized the government's constitutional amendment as a "coup", but nothing has been overthrown, much less by the military. Anti-government protests have set fire to the congress building to prevent progress of a bill to weaken the current one-term presidential limit. The characterization is hyperbole, which should not be reflected in a WP article title.

Indeed, nothing I've seen so far suggests even a self-coup of the sort that's happening in Venezuela.

Not that the riots might not trigger a coup d'état on the pretext that the government cannot maintain order, but that's a hypothetical future. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps rename this to 2017 Paraguay protests? El_C 12:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 12:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you El_C! 71.41.210.146 (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I've restored Category:2010s coups d'état and coup attempts. It was a coup attempt.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The same regime is still in power—there has been no coup d'état to topple someone. There still will have to be a referendum held. And then an election. The Supreme Court is still going to rule about whether the Senate vote was illegal. But there isn't a new ruler or anything like that. El_C 06:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

That's why it was an attempt.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, it seems like a bit of a stretch. We have a vote in the Senate, which the Supreme Court will rule on its legality. But calling that a coup, which I realise the opposition is doing, could be premature for Wikipedia to decide on. El_C 06:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not for us to decide, and we are not the mouthpiece of the Paraguayan Supreme Court. It was presented as a coup attempt. It's not a coup because it failed but definitely an attempt.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Few sources are calling this re-election vote a coup. El_C 06:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Look at The Guardian. The opposition attempted a coup.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

And the Daily Mail and Time, but those three seem to be the only ones to call it that. El_C 07:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

We go by RS. If RS call it a coup attempt, we can add the category. We are not the mouthpiece of the Paraguayan government. If you want to disambiguate the category, by creating one for coups and another one for coup attempts, you could try that...Zigzig20s (talk) 07:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm concerned with due weight across the totality of reliable sources. Because only three sources called it a coup, all three from the UK for some reason, and no other source has done so since. El_C 20:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I would look at the 2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis talk page. Since Venezuelan articles tend to have heavy polarization, we had a lengthy discussion about this similar situation not being a coup due to the POV it would push. "Constitutional crisis" is the most suitable term, we concluded.--ZiaLater (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The articles are not the same, and can't be compared. In Venezuela, the Congress was closed (and then reopened again after the backlash, but it was closed). Closing one of the three powers is definitely something that sets apart a coup from mere political authoritarianism. No such thing took place here: a constitutional amendment is an acceptable and lawful event, even if there is some controversy on how it is carried out. Cambalachero (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Constitutional crisis? New title?

While working on the 2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis, I also saw in sources that this incident was called a "constitutional crisis". I think we could expand on this article placing it under that name and showing more background. Share some opinions, don't be shy.--ZiaLater (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Some sources: "Paraguay faces constitutional crisis" - Reuters, "Paraguay confronted a constitutional crisis on Saturday while Latin American nations urged the country to uphold its constitution hours after senators quietly moved to amend it, sparking fierce protests in the poor, landlocked country." - The Wall Street Journal, "Paraguay's constitutional crisis" - Foreign Policy --ZiaLater (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The question is whether the protests should be the focus or the constitutional crisis that caused them. I have no strong opinion, but am leaning at two articles: one about the protests, the other about the closed Senate vote. El_C 22:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense, to me it just depends on whether the protests maintain momentum, then it would be appropriate to just have one article. That's why I was thinking of having a "constitutional crisis" article and a protest section of such. If protests grow, then maybe it would be necessary to make a separate article to cover those events.--ZiaLater (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

We have to rephrase the lead accordingly, but I have no objection to another rename. El_C 04:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: @Sfs90: @Ad Orientem: @Cambalachero: @Holy Goo: We recently worked on something similar to this. What do you think? Really want to reach a consensus before I make a move.--ZiaLater (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I did not support the name change of the Venezuela article, but unfortunately it was changed. Using the same arguments I used before, calling something a constitutional crisis is too vague. Someone who stumbles upon this article as a Google search result won't know straight away that it is about the protests and the Congress' attempt to allow reelection. They will most likely be expecting to see an article about the protests, and the name would catch their attention. You just can't go around wanting to call every political controversy a constitutional crisis. Holy Goo (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

By the way, all headlines I remember seeing mentioned the protests, but that's just my word. When I Google "Paraguay News", most headlines I see are about protests and the Congress being set on fire. I don't have time now to go copy and paste links. Holy Goo (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Why don't we look to the bigger picture, and focus instead on the amendment itself? Or the bill, at this point. Those protests are just a subtopic of that main topic, not a topic in themselves. A good name may be 2017 amendment to the Constitution of Paraguay. Cambalachero (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 April 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to 2017 Paraguayan crisis. (non-admin closure) Yashovardhan (talk) 11:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

---

2017 Paraguay protests → 2017 amendment to the Constitution of Paraguay – The protests, and even the specific vote in the Congress that sparked the protests, are just secondary subtopics of the main topic, the bill for amending the Constitution of Paraguay. The article should be focused on it. Cambalachero (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily opposed to a title change, but the article isn't about the amendment; it's about the reaction to it. I think we'd have to re-write the article for that change to make sense. Maybe "2017 Paraguayan constitutional crisis"? Can we call it a constitutional crisis? If not, maybe just political crisis? -- Irn (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

A crisis directly tied to the bill, so the article should be about the bill. Of course that all the news outlets will be discussing the protests, and this article was written in the hurry to reflect the issue; but now that that's done we should focus on the bigger picture. Cambalachero (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Move to "2017 Paraguayan crisis". It is about more than just the protests. It is about a lot more than just "2017 amendment to the Constitution of Paraguay", so that's not a good name for the article, and keeping the existing name would be better than that. "2017 Paraguayan constitutional crisis" or "2017 Paraguayan political crisis" would be OK too, although they do not satisfy conciseness as well. Herostratus (talk) 03:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Move to 2017 Paraguayan political crisis per Herostratus (whose proposal is also acceptable) – I think that "crisis" needs qualification per WP:PRECISION, and we don't have to be concise at all costs, particularly in a descriptive title. I agree that the proposed title falls short of describing the contents. No such user (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Move to "2017 Paraguayan crisis" as stopgap until there is greater agreement to change to alternative title. Seems that the situation in Paraguay is escalating into something more than just protests. Also, if the title is changed, the layout should change from the current version as well. The "Aftermath" section should be either renamed or reorganized. --George Ho (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Bid slogan eng HR 300dpi RGB.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)