Talk:Súmate/Archive 1

POV

Controversy with the carmona decree and MCM is not referenced or the exit poll controversy, also the "not a majority of the electorate" has to be referenced if it is official Sumate policy. Flanker 18:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exit poll controversy can be easily added, if you feel it belongs here, although it amounts to a cut and paste from other articles - please clarify which parts of that discussion you believe belong here, to understand what you want added. Since the issue is discussed in other articles, maybe you can just add what you think is needed? For those who don't know, (I assume?) with MCM you are referring to Maria Corina Machado (please verify?). If so, maybe you want to add the wording you feel is needed for NPOV? I am not understanding all of your comments: by "majority of the electorate", I assume you are referring to the discussion on the Chavez talk page about whether to include abstention figures in vote tallies? Not following what you mean about this being official Sumate policy. Please clarify, so items can be addressed. Just a note of appreciation for how friendly the discussion has been on the Chavez page: POV was first raised on Talk:Hugo Chávez on 31 March [1] and POV tag was added six weeks later, when POV was not addressed [2], and after several anon reverts. I'm sure we could have addressed these issues here without a POV tag :-) Sandy 20:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I breached protocol I apologize, I guess I was too bold :). The controversy has to be expanded the Penn exit poll used Sumate field workers, it was also ilegally released early creating both a sense of jubilation and ironically might have even cost them. Also MCM (yes her) was one of the signatories of the infamous carmonazo [3] [4]As for the rest I should have put a citation was needed.

OK, no problem :-)

1. I added something about the PBS exit polls, which is just cut and paste from multiple places on Wiki now. I'm not sure how it's relevant to the Sumate article (as opposed to the many other places it's been mentioned), but it has been added.

2. On the MCM/Carmona issue, I am loathe to add anything with Venanalysis as a reference. You deleted a reference on the Chavez article, indicating that "Vcrisis is not a primary source but a blog". If VCrisis references are to be deleted, than there are many dubious references in the main Hugo Chávez article. I'm wondering how you distinguish an organization like VenAnalysis from VCrisis, and whether you have a more valid source for the same info about MCM. I don't deny the fact (it was certainly logical that she would/should sign that document, considering her position in Venezuela), just want a better source to quote so as not to introduce biased sources. If I have to add a VenAnalysis source, then I'll also have to object that the article is POV, and we'll never get the tag removed :-) Since you want this info added, do you have a reliable source? Also, since it is entirely logical that she would/should sign that document, I'm really unclear on exactly what you want added, and why you find it controversial, so again, it might be better that you add your own words.

Well, pursuant to our conversation about sources, I held my nose and added the VenAnalysis info, although I still don't see why it's controversial that she would attend a Presidential swearing-in, considering the role played by Súmate in the marches. I wouldn't expect this information to be found on a more reliable source, as it was hardly newsworthy. Removing the POV tag, as I've addressed all 3 issues you raised. Sandy 02:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. On the citation needed that you added, indicating that a reference is needed for more abstention than votes in his favor, I've added the same infoboxes used in the main article. Sandy 00:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might have prejudice against venanalysis ;) They did not write that piece it was these guys [5] just that they don't have it anymore and venanalysis archived it. I will see if I find another source but I am mostly looking for sources for Hugo Chavez and am a bit tired too.Flanker 02:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry -- I'll also look for something when I can. Or, I'll focus on adding something about MCM's virtues, for balance :-) Sandy 02:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually like it as it is thanks, as for the Carmonazo and MCM you might want to look at the page I started The Carmona Decree.Flanker 18:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SF, glad that's settled, since I wasn't sure what the problem was. Thanks for letting me know about your new article, but I'm not sure I'm willing to invest any more time in any new articles, now that I'm exposed to a second "dicatorship" in my lifetime. :-)) Sandy 19:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Treason and conspiracy charges part

You need to consider that Chavez received 2.000.000 Dollars from the spanish Bilvao-Biscaya Bank for the same purpouse.

infragon

The article is not necesserally about Hugo Chavez, however there are differences the Bank link was denied by Chavez (don't believe him on this) second the campaign finances were managed by Miquilena, third they came from comercial institutions, meaning that it is at worst corruption. Sumate admits recieving NED money, but most importantly it came from a foreign government that is quite hostile. A correct equivalence was Chavez recieving money from Fidel or an intermidiary of Fidel.Flanker 19:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this article is totally political spin! Examples:

"A Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates (PSB) exit poll predicted that Chávez would lose by 20%, whereas the election results showed him to have won by 20%. Schoen commented, "I think it was a massive fraud".[6] PSB used Súmate personnel as fieldworkers; according to IndyMedia, its results contradicted five other opposition exit polls. Publication or broadcast of exit polls was banned by electoral authorities, but results of the PSB poll went out to media outlets and opposition offices several hours before polls closed.[7]"

Ok: The PSB poll is just ridicoulus rubish, why to cite Schoen, he is just a very unintersting and unimportant guy... but now the real however diletantic manipulation: "...according to IndyMedia..." hello? According to all serious Newssources of the world the PSB-polls contradicted all the other opposition, governmental and third parties polls.

Also the talks about "only 35% of the electorate" or "more people absense then..": In a lot of countries, including such famous democracies as Switzerland, Austria, United States, Germany, UK, Austria etc. the turnout is lower and/or the Head of Goverment got far, far less then 35% of the electorate (In a lot of country they even got less than 35% of the votes cast!). The only is therefore totally misleading, its actually even a quite High number.

More concerning: This article pretends to be about a "volunteer civil association" but it only talks about politics in Venezuela, indicating (without serious proofs, actually) frauds, repression etc. by the government. The place to write about election frauds or Repression is in the respective articles, not in the organisations lemma. Obviously this entry is just abused to promote the political agenda of Sumate or third persons. --Fairfis 00:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is obviously biased in its tone. I have no particular affection for any of the main players in Venezuela, but there is more to this organisation than a noble pursuit of citizen participation.

The recent election had a turnout over 61%. Granted it would be nice if more people turned out, but its about the same as the UK and a damn sight higher than in the USA.

Its quite obvious that Sumate are really concerned with increasing the ant-Chavez vote. the problem in Venezuela is that the opposition are disorganised and incompetent. If they spent more time developing a political programme that is coherent, and produced credible candidates they would do better.

Indeed, having watched the behaviour of some of their candidates after the recall referendum, I would say that it might be a start to pick people who who are not certifiable.

A new opposition, which is not constituted from scary right-wing nutters, but is rooted in democracy and social justice is the only way to oppose Chavez effectively. the millions who vote for him do so because they want running water, medecine and education for their children. The opposition give the clear impression that they are only concerned with getting lots more money for people like them.

I utterly oppose any effort to repress the activities of Sumate as long as they are not involved in undermining the legally constituted elected government. the government must protect the safety and freedom of speech of these people. But Sumate should be honest, they want more people to vote because they believe it will undermine Chavez, would they be so interested in voter turn-out if it meant bigger majorities for Chavez?

Unfortunately a lot of people in Venezuela believe in democracy, but only if the result is the one they want. The opposition should re-invent itself, provide tough but constructive oppostion, get rid of the hysterical loonies and provide the people with a credible alternative to Chavez that does not involve doing what the White House tells it to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrivateWiddle (talk • contribs) 17:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP

"Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia" [[6]]JRSP 07:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until you specify which material you're concerned about, tag is removed. (By the way, your link above to WP:BLP isn't working.) Sandy 13:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See [[7]], [[8]],[[9]].

Also remember that the banner is a reminder, the policy applies even if the banner is removed. JRSP 14:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the material you pointed out (above) is sourced. Further, this article is not a biography of a living person. You might make it a stretch to say it's a biography of Plaz or Machado, in which case, Flanker's dubious and biased sources criticizing Machado need to be removed. Thanks for reminding me. But, since this article is NOT a bio, the tag doesn't need to be in place at the top of the article, unless Flanker continues to add poorly-sourced criticism of Machado. Sandy 15:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out above, "This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia". The policy protects the reputation of any living person, including of course, Ms Machado and Mr Plaz. Although the article is not a bio, the principle is valid anywhere in the wikipedia, including talk pages JRSP 15:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, and will be on the lookout for further poorly-sourced allegations against either. However, since *this* article is not a bio, it doesn't warrant the tag at the top. Sandy 15:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the tag should stay, considering the article, until recently, contained poorly sourced statements about a living person and in effect also protects Sumate's staff against unsupported allegations.JRSP 15:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El Nacional List

JRSP, I'll wait a bit for you to provide a report that goes along with this list; if you don't have a media report which provides context for the list, I'll remove the sentence. Presenting a list, with no context, is certainly bordering on violating WP:BLP, as there is no explanation or journalistic report whatsoever attached to these allegations. Thanks Sandy 13:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added analitica link, that is two opposition WP:RS corroborating her signature of the decree.Flanker 19:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some material seems unrelated to subject

I split a paragraph in order to highlight some material whose relation with Sumate is not clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRSP (talk • contribs)

Material to update

NGO Súmate has not received foreign currency. El Universal (9 August 2006).

Súmate: Foreign contributions amount to 6 percent of funds. El Universal (8 August 2006).

National Assembly to charge NGO Súmate with high treason. El Universal (9 August 2006).

POV

The sections on "History" and "Recall" read like anti-Chavez polemics rather than an NPOV encyclopedia. Much of the information is about the recall itself, rather than Sumate or the role of Sumate within these events. AndrewRT - Talk 23:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand AndrewRT concerns. The History section only mentions Súmate in a one line paragraph after a lengthy introduccion. The recall ref seccion has similar problems. This seccions must be more focused on the subject of the article JRSP 08:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still vague. History is for context: what other history do you want to include? What other history of Sumate do you suggest there might be that is not told? This looks like an objection for the sake of objection. Please define some specific and actionable problems that can be addressed, in both sections. SuperFlanker provided a list above: every item on that list was met. Neither you nor AndrewRT have specificed a single issue that can be acted on, other than a very vague objection that you don't like the way it reads. The facts are what they are: what else do you want them to say? Sandy 10:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too much context for too little Súmate. These sections are well covered in other articles. Perhaps a brief summary and some links would be better than the full text. The subject of the article looks dwarfed in the present version JRSP 18:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is still not an actionable POV objection. So, you want more writing about Sumate, so it won't be dwarfed next to the history, although the article makes no sense without the context of the history. Allrighty then. Sandy 20:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary and links to avoid the context overwhelming Súmate. I think this is more important than adding more about Súmate JRSP 20:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've shown you the kind of think I meant with the recall section. Just to emphasise, there is a detailed article about the recall elsewhere. This article only needs to summarise the main points from that article, and to bring out the role of Sumate in that referendum. Anything else is superfluous. AndrewRT - Talk 21:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the article may lead readers into thinking that Súmate is an opposition group and not an impartial NGO JRSP 21:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JRSP, I will attempt to fix that. AndrewRT, I hope you have read the talk page and realize that you deleted content that another editor insisted be added in order to remove his POV tag. Sandy 21:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The photo for instance. Was Súmate organizing opposition marches? JRSP 22:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marches were about the denials of the recall (among other things), which specifically implicated Sumate as having collected invalid signatures. Sumate organized the recall. Any good reason not to have photos in an article? I hope someone sees the irony in this: SuperFlanker insists on adding content or the article is POV; you and AndrewRT insist on taking out the same content, or it's POV. Why such a need to suppress information, and for example, the pictures of the magnitude of the marches in support of Sumate's work? Sandy 22:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a pro-RR march, but a pro-Sí march. The image filename is anti-chavez.jpg JRSP 22:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The person who uploaded the file specifically added the following: (One of many anti Hugo Chávez marches in Caracas, Venezuela. This protest was in favor of the 2004 recall referendum. The photographer is Carlos Granier-Phelps. He was contacted directly at fotos@carlanga.com for permission. Additional pho) Are you saying the person who uploaded the photo was not telling the truth? Do you not recall these events, at any rate? Sandy 22:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't lie. What's the issue with the picture? Spaceriqui 04:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure this was not the closing act of the "si" just a few days before the RR. Perhaps the date of the picture would help JRSP 10:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it is part of the Sí march, actually. It was sent to me just a few days before the RR, and if you look at the picture below, you can see the stage and the banners around it. I am still not clear on the distinction between a pro-RR and a pro-Sí march you are trying to draw, and how that relates to the article. Maybe you could elaborate. Spaceriqui 12:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because Súmate is not supposed to promote the "Sí" option as they define themselves as an impartial NGO. Promoting the RR is fine for Súmate but not siding with one of the options JRSP 13:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand the distinction you're making. Whether they "promoted" it or not, the referendum in general was held because of Súmate's efforts. What is the concern? Sandy 14:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about Súmate and it should portray them as an impartial organization. Otherwise it could mislead readers into thinking Súmate is an anti-Chávez organization. JRSP 14:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, why don't we add a photo of the pro-Chávez marches ? Sandy 14:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an image showing Súmate volunteers helping in the signature collect. Partisan activities favoring "Si" or "No" should be avoided JRSP 14:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with that. Spaceriqui 14:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I don't know how to search on images. Do we have one in the Wiki Commons? Sandy 15:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions needed

User:SuperFlanker insisted that the article cover the PBS exit poll controversy, and tagged the article as POV without it (see first entry on talk page). User:AndrewRT took out the same information, saying the article was POV with it. We need additional opinions: do we add back in the exit poll information or not? Sandy 14:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If PBS used Sumate's personnel or volunteers, then it is relevant to subject JRSP 14:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that, to explain it fully, we have to add back in chunks of text that AndrewRT deleted, or else the comments have no context. What to do ? Sandy 15:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, SuperFlanker also insisted that the Hausmann/Rigobon data had to be refuted, but AndrewRT took that out, leaving only one side of the story. So, this article is stuck between two editors who each think it's POV for opposite sides of the same coin. I see no reason to have deleted all of the information that satisfied Flanker's concerns about POV. Unless anyone else objects over the next few days, I will add those two items back in, so that another editor won't come along and object that the article is one-sided. Sandy 00:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a fan of incredibly verbose statemnets specially if they are found elsewhere, I agree with JRSP make it about Sumate not what surrounds Sumate.Flanker 14:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I don't think the article is necessarily POV with this information, just off topic. This article is about Sumate, not the referendum, and should discuss Sumate, not the referendum. Otherwise there is a danger that this article degenerates into a POV fork. AndrewRT - Talk 20:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flanker insisted that what he calls a "controversy" had to be reflected here, or the article would be POV. Taking out what you call off-topic info results in Flanker calling the article POV. Quite a mystery how one can please both of you, but when in doubt, including info referenced to reliable sources is better than deleting it. I don't think a few extra sentences are overburdening the reader. Sandy 21:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impartial NGO

I'm baffled! How can an organisation that organised a recall election and then organised a primary to select an opposition presidential candidate possibly be called an impartial NGO? Particularly when they are led by prominent opposition politicians. I don't care what they proclaim themselves to be.

More to the point, if they do claim to be an "impartial" NGO, perhaps there is evidence supporting this which can be published in this article (perhaps under a section on ==Impartiality==?) AndrewRT - Talk 20:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's already there. I think you are either misunderstanding or misreading the reliable sources. Very few accuse them of being impartial (notably, Juan Forero and the BBC, who are consistently pro-Chavez in their reporting). What they are in favor of is democracy and transparent electoral processes. Since the electoral process has been so severely compromised in Venezuela, they promote electoral openness and democratic electoral processes, such as primaries and referendums, which are allowed by the constitution even though Chavez does everything in his power to stop them. I hope that clears up your confusion, Sandy 21:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they were not an impartial NGO they would have to return tax payer money to NED JRSP 21:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, JRSP, you know that's not a valid argument :-) All NGOs receive grants. By the way, hard to imagine such a fuss over a measly $30,000. I can't figure who thinks that piddling amount of money would do anything except fund a seminar or two on voter education, which is what it did do. Sandy 21:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The significant levels of funding from the US government needs to be mentioned under the heading of other controversies. The total is far more than $30,000 when the USAID funds are included. The POV sections of this article need a major overhaul. The current content is pure spin. There are diverse sources describing SUMATE as a partisan lobbying group. For example, it states on the Americas.org website:

"Recently, NED announced that it was not only renewing but substantially increasing funding for Súmate (Join Up), the anti-Chávez group closely associated with Venezuela’s traditional political and business elite. Súmate was a main force behind the failed referendum and its principals openly backed the April coup. Typically, Súmate also has received USAID funding, and at higher levels than the NED grants." Carat04 22:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So strongly in favor of democracy that their founder and leader supported a military coup to overthrow the elected government of Venezuela. 71.203.209.0 21:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a point of view that might be brought into this discussion (though it might not be appropriate for the article). Chavez version of democracy does not include independent powers, his is really an autocratic movement that subscribes to all the state power being under his hands. Recent events very clearly underline that (i.e. the recent declarations from the energy minister, that were later backed by Chavez himself and several of his ministers), but such authoritarian streak has been evident for many years. Súmate, by the simple act of promoting democracy becomes automatically an opposition force. Chavez-speak tends to hide this difference between being pro-democracy and being against-Chavez. Súmate's efforts are what made the referendum possible, without Súmate it would not have happened. All the research that came afterwards that has raised serious doubts about the referendum results are also a consequence of Súmate's actions. Though saying that Súmate is an 'Opposition' force would be the same as saying that blackboxvoting or any of the other electronic voting action groups are 'Democrat Party' forces. Thu Nov 9 22:25 2006 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.141.137 (talk • contribs)

Rewriting the constitution?

In 1999 a NEW Constitution was approved in a referendum, the 1961 constitution was therefore derogated, the constitution wasn't rewritten, it was changed. --159.90.10.250 17:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV

This article is the most farcically POV article I've seen on wikipedia, crammed full with weasel words and blatantly one-sided descriptions, with little mention of the well-deserved criticism such a group as this is due. It might as well be Sumate's own website.Nwe 01:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nwe: can you please provide examples of these weasle words so they can be addressed, and what descriptions you feel are left out, including reliable sources for the text you want to include? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstention

Right, but the idea is to discuss and source the high abstention; that was the original citation needed. This article discusses the high abstention, although it extends the context for the abstention to other issues. How do you want to fix your concern? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, OIT does not have "an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight". Their opinion that there were an "effective boycott" must be backed up by some reliable sources. The other ref only supports that there were more abstention than in the 1998 election not that there were a boycott. JRSP 01:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you may be overinterpreting the wording effectively boycott; they don't say or imply an actual boycott. But I can find other sources if you want. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article would be better with neutral sources than with an organization with an agenda like ILO.JRSP 01:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who ILO is; no problem deleting it. I was just looking to source the high abstention, and they popped up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ILO/OIT is International Labor Organization/Organización Internacional del Trabajo. In 1999, Carlos Ortega had a strong influence in their opinions on Venezuela labor issues. JRSP 01:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ah, I see. Well, they got deleted from Wiki, but they must be good guys -- the two don't corelate well :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect quote attribution

From the article,

According to CBS News, Chávez branded the leaders of Súmate, a vote-monitoring group, as "conspirators, coup plotters and lackeys of the U.S. government".

[19]

When I read the CBS article cited, however, this quote never comes up. I'm unable to find another source. If somebody can please fix this, or relink it to the appropriate article, it'd be appreciated.

Diego —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.237.229 (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still a hurra-Page for Sumate

After years of criticism this page is still not an article about an organisation but a Propaganda-Site in favor of the goals of an Organisation. If it does not better in a month a I gonna stub it to just facts about Sumate and its work. --80.219.146.186 (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Sandy, WP:ELNO item 13 explicitly says "A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject". That Súmate is in the table of contents of the report does not justify the inclusion of the external link. JRSP (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links is where we put info for article expansion; if you have a problem with its inclusion, I will add text and use it as a reference, after I pr/ar FAC. It is quite clearly relevant enough for them to explicitly mention Sumate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You could have taken a moment to do the same rather than reverting a valid addition, as another example of collaborating on articles by editing them and expanding content rather than reverting. I will expand later today as I have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Highlighted Súmate" is not very informative. BTW, the HRW report is primary material, we should be working with secondary sources instead. JRSP (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then suggest alternate wording, expand and write it into the body of the article yourself, or be patient until I have time to rewrite it later today, but please don't take more of my time with unhelpful reversions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not delete? It's not very informative now and an expansion from a primary source is not a good idea. JRSP (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seemingly spreading belief that questionable additions should stand whilst someone might eventually sort them out should be stopped. Questionable additions can and often should be removed. Moving to the talk page or possibly elsewhere (eg userspace draft) may be helpful - but it depends on the content and the context. Rd232 ^talk 23:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about an External link, not text, and it's not questionable. (Nor is text cited to The New York Times :) Let's not make an argument that hasn't been made; the issue is reverting and edit warring when sourced additions are made. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, you added some text using the report as a source,[10] so it's not an EL now. JRSP (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that varies from our policy on primary sources how? Please quote the page on WP:OR on primary sources, so I can understand your concern. (And are you claiming there is "no" mention in secondary sources?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NPOV : "Reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". Also, from WP:V "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight.[...] Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves" JRSP (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I requested above, primary sources are discussed at the WP:OR page; what on that page troubles you about the use here? And what is POV in the way the source is currently used in this text? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on your promised expansion, I can't comment on something that does not exist; as the article stands now, the sentence "A 2008 Human Rights Watch report highlighted Sumate" does not add much value to the article; in practice the ref is still an EL. JRSP (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on your concerns relative to Wikipedia:OR#Primary.2C secondary and tertiary sources; I'm not going to expend time expanding text until you've clarified what the concern is. There is currently no POV, so please explain your concern relative to primary sources. We agree that the text doesn't add much, but you objected to it as an external link, so I "textified" it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I told you before, I can't comment on a text that does not exist yet. JRSP (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly takes a long time to get to the point here :) OK, so the current text is not POV, and you have no argument to make regarding the valid use of primary sources, and you don't claim that secondary sources don't mention the issue. I'll expand text as soon as I can get to it. Not likely while there are legal threats at BLPN, though :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel articles

I'm not very sure if WP:BLP1E applies to these cases but perhaps the articles on María Corina Machado and Alejandro Plaz should be merged here, Almost all information in those articles is related to Súmate. JRSP (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the "one event" according to you? Being charged with treason? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is not "one event" but basically they are only notable for their work at Súmate. JRSP (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As many individuals who have BLPs on WIki are notable for their work; BLP1E came about because of criminals. So, is their "one event" being charged with treason? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a proposal, perhaps their bios can be merged here. It is not strictly 1E but there are not many notable things to say about them that are not already here. JRSP (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added this morning a whole slew of new sources that need to be incorporated, so I don't think that's the case. I'll get to those as I can; FAC was backlogged, and I've been busy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that but all articles are related to Súmate. Both articles are almost orphan, only links from this article and among themselves and an article on a writer who happens to be Machado's ancestor. JRSP (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, that would be the natural conclusion of cleaning any mention of Plaz and Machado out of the rest of the Venezuelan articles. Perhaps they can be added back in, as they should be? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a very interesting option if the link can be made to this article. My point is that there is nothing to say about them that is not related to Súmate. JRSP (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you would have to argue, then, at Wiki's notability page that our policy should be changed to eliminate articles for people who are quite notable for their work; they both meet Wiki's notability requirements, and there are multiple sources that could be used to expand their articles further. That they aren't even mentioned in relevant articles, considering they were charged with conspiracy and treason for promoting democracy, is an artefact of the bias across Chavez/Venezuela articles on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1E is only related to events, not to affiliations, so I don't see how it applies. I'll take this as a good exuse to try to beef up their articles and add more general biographic information (well, it'll be on my to-do list at least, you know how these things go...). But a vast number of BLPs are of individuals primarily notable for one thing (a scientific debate, being president of an organization, etc.) that I'm afraid that the logical conclusion for JRSP's suggestion would result in a mass deletion of articles. In any case, I can't find anything at WP:BIO that says that their articles should be merged. Awickert (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad someone has some free time! I plopped a lot of sources into external links, and one more on Machado's talk page, but writing the content takes more time than I've got right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Free time" is optimistic. I'll look through the refs, see what I can do, and also try to had some standard personal background to the both of them, Awickert (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've always tended to interpret BLP1E liberally - if there isn't much to say about a person separate from the Thing They're Known For Which Has Its Own Article, then it makes sense to merge. In these cases, there's just about enough to justify separate articles, but I can see why JRSP suggested a merge and I wouldn't strongly oppose it if people wanted that. (Which apparently they don't.) Rd232 ^talk 09:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sources

Human Rights Watch statement on trial of Súmate founders
Democracy Activists in Venezuela Threatened
The State of Democracy in Venezuela, United States Senate hearing before the Committee on foreign relations.
U.S. Department of State, The State of Democracy in Venezuela, 1 December 2005.
US Embassy statement on "conspiracy" charges against Súmate founders
Final Warsaw Declaration: Toward a Community of Democracies. Warsaw, Poland, 27 June 2000
U.S. News on Exit Polls in Venezuela
CNN article

Lying with statistics

It is remarkable that the results for 1998 and 2000 elections show the turnout rate, but that statistic is not reflected for the 1993 and earlier presidential elections. This makes it impossible to substantiate that such a thing was unprecedented. The raw number of votes cast in 1993 was in fact smaller than in 1998. Maintaining the same rate of voter turnout would suggest a 12% population increase. A better voter turnout in 1993 would suggest a higher population growth. So, in the absence of evidence to the contrary let's just say that voter turnout remained the same. Thus Chavez in 1998 did indeed win with the vote of 35% of the electorate, but by applying the same reasoning Caldera in 1993 won with 30% of 64% = 19% of the electorate. Eclecticology (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be sourced here, but turnout in the 80s and earlier was substantially higher. See also partyarchy and clientelism in the Punto Fijo Pact era... Rd232 ^talk 10:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by tag

A POV tag was placed on this article with no justification on talk (see here). There was a very old (2010) discussion of POV that was resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, notice removed.[11] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Súmate. 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/20120716183631/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_040820.htm to http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_040820.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040819_91.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060330020217/http://www.wmd.org/democracyalerts/july1504.html to http://www.wmd.org/democracyalerts/july1504.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310164342/http://caracas.usembassy.gov/wwwh2678.html to http://caracas.usembassy.gov/wwwh2678.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ned.org/press/pr111104.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201202705/http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/08/09/en_pol_art_09A762463.shtml to http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/08/09/en_pol_art_09A762463.shtml
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060330020217/http://www.wmd.org/democracyalerts/july1504.html to http://www.wmd.org/democracyalerts/july1504.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310164342/http://caracas.usembassy.gov/wwwh2678.html to http://caracas.usembassy.gov/wwwh2678.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Súmate. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biased stats

Referring to the % of electorate who voted for a president is a sly use of stats to demean a majority win. The simplest description of an election's result is % of popular vote, with qualifications about voter turnout, electoral vote, etc. placed *afterward* in the text. By comparison, note that Obama only earned 28% of US electorate in 2012: Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections For "relevance" to South America, see this more general documentation in wikipedia: Voter_turnout#Trends_of_decreasing_turnout_since_the_1980s Martindo (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]