Talk:Judgment of the Constitutional Court of Peru over the motion of confidence proposed on 17 November 2022

Respect the nature of the article

This is a stable article, please do not edit without first discussing it here. It is an article related to a court ruling, so it should be limited to that. For political issues there are other articles already created.--Elelch (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

You are the only other user editing this article. Please review WP:OWN.--WMrapids (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. Look at the history and you will see another editors, that have not been disruptive.--200.37.167.59 (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Background and other related topics

Due to the questions raised regarding the relation of some content to this judicial decision, one must know the political crisis currently occurring in Peru. Sources have stated that the current Constitutional Court was nominated in dubious circumstances by a Congress that has conflicted with every president since Humala. This context is necessary in this article about a judicial decision that has given Congress power to interpret whether or not the executive is raising a motion of confidence, according to sources. Removal of this information, which is properly sourced, is not advised. WMrapids (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

This is an article about a court ruling. To deal with the peruvian political crisis there is another specific article. In addition, you are placing sources that are known to be from the far left, which clearly biases the article whose neutrality is guaranteed precisely by circumscribing it to explain the decision and no more. Finally, that the decisions of a court do not like the political power, is not a reason to question them. Elelch (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

When the Constitutional Court is a direct party to the political crisis, then all of this is related. Sources believe it is related, so this meets WP:VERIFY. Also, which source is from the "far-left" and why do you believe that?--WMrapids (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Please first discuss here before unilateral editing. You try to put content that fits in another specific article. This is just for a court ruling and you are trying to bias the article. For exemple, your paragraph on the constitutional court contains subjective opinions that go against neutrality and, in any case, would belong to the article on the court and not to this one, which deals solely with a ruling.--Elelch (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, you are making baseless accusations:

• you are placing sources that are known to be from the far left, which clearly biases the article
  • Please discuss this as you are making a bold accusation here.
• your paragraph on the constitutional court contains subjective opinions that go against neutrality
  • The information is WP:VERIFIABLE from reliable sources.
• [Information should] belong to the article on the court and not to this one, which deals solely with a ruling
  • The decision of the court is directly linked to the political crisis.

In summary, you are removing verifiable information from reliable sources because you believe it is biased from "far left" sources, while you keep other information that says some individuals "assured that the ruling was correct". This is a gross misrepresentation and will be dealt with. WMrapids (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

You are continually modifying a stable version for no reason. Just because a source is verifiable doesn't mean it should be used, please see WP:VNOT. For example, Human Rights Watch has a long history of criticism precisely for being biased and the matters around the conformation of Constitutional Court can fit into Peruvian political crisis (2017–present) or in Constitutional Court of Peru, not here. Likewise, the paragraph in which Pedro Castillo's attempt to justify his failed coup d'état also fit in 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt, not here. This is an article over a court ruling, not for politics. Also, you mention the case of the dissolution of congress in 2019 that has no relation to this article because they were different situations. The only explanation for these pointless edits is to try to bias the article to disqualify the decision. But this is an encyclopedia, not a political forum. I insist, this is an article about a judicial decision. The best way to maintain its neutrality is limiting it to explain the decision without burdening it with the political content that you are trying to add, and that may well go in other already existing articles like the ones I have mentioned above, not here.--Elelch (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Elelch: I have to remind you to remain WP:CIVIL. Describing my edits as "pointless" and an attempt to introduce "bias" is not only contradictory, but is close to a personal attack, especially when you accuse me of placing a "far left" source without proof. Asking again, what were you describing as a "far left" source?

Regarding the 2019 events, that was placed due to its relation to the Constitutional Court and to provide context that there have been attempts at reform, but that could be removed. As for the rest, it is directly related to the court's current composition and provides context on decision-making by the body.

The main concern with your version is that, as I said before, you explain the ruling without context and present "that the ruling was correct". It is interesting that you accuse me of placing "subjective opinions that go against neutrality", yet describing the ruling as "correct", as you do, while removing the concerns raised by other sources is WP:UNDUE. WMrapids (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Striking and adding: Actually, the decision is also directly related to the ruling as it has been linked to the actions performed during the 2019 Peruvian constitutional crisis.--WMrapids (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The objections remain. Your edits are "pointless", because for the present article they are not relevant and they are "biased" because their inclusion only seeks to try to disqualify the decision attacking the court (which in any case may go in the article of the court, not in this one). Also, it is not true that the article has no context. On the contrary, the background section is extensive and neutrally explains the Peruvian system citing legal norms, explain the vote of confidence, mentions direct antecedents such as the approval of law 31399 and the succession of events that led to the filing of the claim. That is the reason why your editions do not contribute anything relevant, even more so when they are extracts that belong to other articles, ignoring that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. And finally, your accusation that I am "describing the ruling as correct" is close to a personal attack, because it is false. The article cites the opinions of various legal experts in Peru who consider the ruling as "correct" (two of them former presidents of the constitutional court), but the article also points out that this opinion is not unanimous, since there are opposing opinions. That is indicated in the last paragraph of the introduction.--Elelch (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Elelch: Ok, so you say "the article also points out that this opinion is not unanimous, since there are opposing opinions. That is indicated in the last paragraph of the introduction", but there is no specification as to why the ruling "upsets the balance of power between the executive and legislative branch", which is why the background is necessary. If you read through the sources, the "balance of power" concerns are directly related to the background of the current composition of the Constitutional Court, which some sources say is subordinate to Congress. Your citing of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is confusing because that focuses on reliable sources, not "extracts that belong to other articles".

And for the last time, which source is "far left"? WMrapids (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The explanation that you request had been omitted even though it was in the same source. From there, I have completed the sentence that now explains why some consider that the sentence alters the balance of power: "...upsets the balance of power between the executive and legislative branch, by confirming that it is Congress that determines when a motion of confidence is considered rejected or not.". The source that is not reliable as impartial is Human Rights Watch which has a long history of criticism precisely for being biased, but that no longer matters, because with the precision made thanks to your recommendation, the paragraph (and the article) is balanced. You should not object to this precision as it is taken from the source that you added to the article yourself.--Elelch (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

You think Human Rights Watch is "far left"?

There is still a lot of undue emphasis on the ruling being "correct" since you are limiting criticism to the ruling to one sentence in the introduction. This might require more than a WP:3O at this point since there's a lot to dig through here. Overall, a lot of what you are saying is contradictory and somewhat strange, but I'm trying to work with you... WMrapids (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Please, stop editing without discussing it here first. In your eagerness to disqualify the court, you post nonsense things like "...that the executive branch could no longer dissolve the legislative branch". That is false. The legal dissolution of congress due to two denied votes of confidence continues unabated. The only thing the ruling has done is prohibit the executive branch from interpreting unilaterally when the confidence has been denied. You should read the court ruling (which is the most important primary source in this case) before editing --Elelch (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@WMrapids: I don't understand why it's so hard for you to first propose the changes here before making them unilaterally. Even so, I have picked up some of your suggestions about the infobox and the use of "many".--Elelch (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@WMrapids: again, by not posting the changes here before making them, you alter the article. For example, in the introduction, it is not the sentence, but the constitutionalist Anibal Quiroga who suggests that Anibal Torres could be denounced. Also, although the reference to the 2019 ruling is necessary, you forget that here it is only an antecedent, and therefore only what is strictly necessary should be mentioned (the escense of the overruled decision). Those who want more information will enter the main article. Also, you use interchangeably the concepts of "denial of confidence" and "motion of no confidence", which although they may be similar, it is better not to alter the wording to maintain uniformity. Peruvian law and the TC ruling refer to this mechanism as "denial of confidence". Please, for the umpteenth time, before editing, first propose the changes here, so as not to have to fix the mismatches you cause.--Elelch (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

It’s not necessary to bring edits to the talk page to be reviewed by you before they are introduced. Per WP:BRD, the discussion we are having here following the recent edits is adequate and I appreciate you working with me. Overall, it looks like we are getting a more well-rounded article with our collaboration. Thank you! WMrapids (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)