Jump to content

Talk:2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citation pool

[edit]

Thought it'd be nice to have one of these near the top instead of all over the discussion page. Meant for sources not introduced into the article. Please add stuff as they come.

Edit as you'd like. Needed cites: full proposals, reliable CIA info, over-all spirit of demonstrations

Thanks, X, this will be helpful if we can actually start writing. As soon as I have time, I'll convert your links above to cite templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needed

[edit]
  • Noting that pro-Chávez marches currently are unmentioned and a sentence or two needs to be added along with the opposition marches.
  • Importance of student involvement in overall outcome.
  • International reaction.
  • Election day issues.
  • Post-referendum analysis.
  • Reliable source on CIA incident needed.
  • Polls which predicted referendum would lose aren't included.  Done
  • Re-write analysis of the procedure for a referendum including list of what was in referendum proposal; I'm willing to work on this section if others agree.  Done

(Please add to this list so we can start writing.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Questions

[edit]

Do Bloomberg and AP.google links endure or do they go dead over time? For example, the Miami Herald links go dead, so I hesitate to use them. I'm not sure on these two new ones, but if we can find those on a permanent link, it would be better. AP and Reuters reports are picked up by many newspapers, so we should try to use one we know has permanent links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to tell. I'm pretty positive ap.google does... sorta (it seems likely). Bloomberg doesn't seem to, but I can't search by date to tell; all I know is their searches are limited to 998 pages Xavexgoem 19:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes on those, if you put the article title into Google, you can find them on another publisher. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
wouldn't know if others archived, though. I'm not getting a lot of luck. Where can this be asked (ap.google & bloomberg)? Xavexgoem 19:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know; I only know from experience that the Miami Herald links go dead. If we need to use anything potentially controversial from a site we're not sure of, we can always include the direct quote in the footnote, in the event the link goes dead. I don't actually understand what JerseyDevil wants to use from the MiamiHerald, since I didn't see anything interesting in that article, other than Chavez moving the site to a place with limited parking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WBM? Xavexgoem 19:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I use it all the time for other (non-news) sources, but 1) they take months to archive things, and 2) most of the news sources now have robots which prevent archival there (I believe it may have to do with copyright, not sure). So, don't count on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the issue, then. The dead citation problem is dealt with in WP:CITE, and, as you said, the relevant info can be added as a footnote. At any rate, what now? Xavexgoem 20:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It only becomes a problem if someone challenges your cited information in the future, and you can't produce the quote or the text; yes, I've seen this happen many times, particularly on controversial articles. If you can't support your text, someone may delete it, so we're better off using the most durable sources from the get-go, and if you know a source might not be durable, add the quote to the talk page or very briefly in the footnote. Next? I'm beginning the reading to try to summarize the actual proposal and the history of how the referendum came about; I hope JRSP will be around later to review and check my work before I add anything. Maybe you can pick an area from the "needed" list below you want to work on expanding or writing? I like to work in sandbox before I add potentially difficult text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on preliminary process the best I can. Evening it out and such. Xavexgoem 20:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
X, are you referring to the student issues and all that? Because I'm trying to rewrite the entire business of how the reform proposal came about, and what it entailed, just so we don't get crossed up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(20x colons) support & opposition. Everything past Nov. 3 relating to yes/no vote protests. I take it you're doing the basic political process? Xavexgoem 20:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to make sure that that bloomberg citations stays on the web? It provides loads of context (for me, at least) Xavexgoem (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, X. I had one link go dead yesterday already (Mercury News), but I was able to locate the same article elsewhere by merely plugging the article title in to Google. Since we're not sure on Bloomberg, your best insurance for now is to save a printed copy, in case any of your text is challenged if it goes missing in the future. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watch page

[edit]

This page is a perfect example of why Wikipedia is starting to lose all credibility and get itself banned from educational institutions around the world. Allowing just any kook conspiracy to be added to an article and then sit there for days while red tape and bureaucracy spin their wheels is why this place is becoming a laughing stock. 72.245.144.250 18:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


There Should be a good watch on this page for Venezuela agents editing it for thier dictator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.116.58 (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, maybe we should put a watch on this page for capitalist agents editing it to suit their ideology. Ottawastudent 00:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or Maybe! A watch for chimpanzee agents editing the page for their banana acquisition scheme! Or better yet, just try to keep it from POV from ANY side... Tonerman 09:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This the worst written and most biased pro-Chavez article ever... Yes, there should be a watch for Fascists like Ottawastudent from editing.--200.109.28.71 12:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point of this article, you would think, was the referendum and not Chavez anyway. Pro- or anti- shouldn't even have to be brought up. E.G., what Chavez's wife said should have no bearing on the referendum nor this article. There is a lot wrapped up in this, much of which can be moved to other articles. I suggest a controversy header for any potentially specious arguments or articles if that can't be cleared up. Xavexgoem 13:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: At any rate, it might be wise to keep the pro-s and anti-s relatively even, and avoid "pro-chavez" and "the opposition"; even out the terminology? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavexgoem (talk • contribs) 13:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss reasons for deletion and edits

[edit]

Someone deleted the last two paragraphs, and edited the one on opposition protests to make it absolutely ideological over factual. I have no problems with edits if they are done to make the article more neutral, no one likes going to wikipedia to read ideologically ridden drivle passed off as information, much less news. If there are any additions please note here why, and if any deletions do so as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ira Weaver (talk • contribs) 02:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since those deleting and re editing this page continue to do so anonomously and without reason I'll assume its vandalism. The last two paragraphs are nuetral, based on facts and are absolutely directly relavent to the election. There is nothing POV about putting them up, or maybe I'm wrong and they violate some rule of sorts, in which case make clear the purpose and reason.Ira Weaver 15:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ira Weaver, please read WP:AGF and note that nowhere does it say that we assume that editors editing from an IP address are vandals or that you can suspend Wikipedia policy when IPs edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read this wikipedia policy from WP:Sources "Questionable sources-Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." If the memo is true, explain this [1]. Caracas1830 01:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad that you've, re-worked your own comment, again. There is no questionable sources, the sources used (with one perticular exception) are not extremist, opinion based, or rumor mills, explain in detail how they are (as many of the sources as you can would shed some light to your position). The matter of sources I think has largely been resolved, and I've found quite a few that are neither socialist, nor Chavez-sypathetic, who have run the story, though maybe not CNN or FOX, t6hey constitute being independant sources. I have used the PSUV wbsite to site the "intentions and purposes" of the referendum to get the official take on the reason for the vote, so in this context i beleive it justifiable to have them as a source for that statement, since its not an advocation but rather their reason for the purpose for the referendum. The sources for Operacion Tenaza are about the same topic (operacion tenaza) but are not simply repeating the same article.
And I dont understand what your source is supposed to mean, why that refutes the memo 'claim', many news stations (like bbc, cnn, msnbc, etc.) have reported the government reactions but link the context innacurately, insinuating a possible early power grab (in the case of bbc), pointless rhetoric, anything but the actual document. If you can find a mention in the major international press about the supposed operation it should be included, however even that wouldnt neccesarily prove anything.By the way, if I seem condescending or beligerant in any way it was unintentional, and apoligize, these matters like politics and religion get people riled up and ruin these talk pages, and i'm begining to hear these talk pages on chavez related topics get more and more hate filled and ideological. Lets be done with all thise rhetoric and keep to respectful discussion. Ira Weaver 01:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A source means news from a reputable news agency referring to the correct event. In order to write an encyclopedic article one cannot make the mistake of using a source from the 2006 Presidential election [2] to talk about the referendum or use sources that quote blogs or are questionable because they are against Wikipedia policy. One must read carefully the articles from reputable news agencies and stick to what they say. No interpretation. (Caracas1830 06:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)).[reply]
WOW! did I put that source up there!, it seems i put the wrong bbc article up, I was reffering to the final protest on November 29 or the 30. Wow, thanks for catching that, could you possibly link the article on the final Yes vote Demonstration?. However I never quoted or sourced some blog site, the unreliability-to say the least- of a source like that is obvious. Nor has there been any "interpretations" (An explanation or conceptualization, here meant in a clearly derogatory context, namely bias) of news articles, they are "what they say", not a page long quote but fact for fact, claim per claim. If not please bring it to attention (specifically) for immediate, unquestionable removal or, not. Ira Weaver 08:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[3]=Questionable source, [4]=blog, [5]=blog, [6]=blog, [7]=blog. This are not sources for an encyclopedia. Where does the Guardian say the masked gunmen were not chavistas? They just say "masked gunmen", so no interpretation.(Caracas1830 08:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The so called questionable source is not so questionable in this article, they quote Reuters (as well as take the pictures from them) Information of the event, students quoted were those directly involved, and an un edited video was among the sources, not to mention that members of their own organization were present at the shooting therefore making it legitimate for them to discuss it and be counted as a reliable source. As for the blog sources, absolutely true, the section should be removed. Your absolutely right that the Gaurdian didnt report it, again, a mistake, I'll find the the other news group that did, (it has totaly slipped my mind), however that simply means they reported a proven false story, and should then be clearly refferred to as a claim and made clear of the real event, correction of the story. Ira Weaver 09:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't kept up with who is introducing the biased sources, but there are several still there. Organizations with an obvious pro-Chávez bias are not reliable sources and don't belong in the article. Please read WP:RS and WP:V and stick to reporting from independent sources or the article will be headed for a POV tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is, the mistaken sources have been removed. There are two specific sources here which are from PSUV and the International Marxist Current. The first is not bias, its reporting what the 'intended' purpose of the vote by the people who enacted the vote. Its not intended to be bias, nor is it controversial to say that the purpose of the election is to implement a form of socialism, therefore its not an "unreliable source" the second source by IMC I explained in LENGTH why it is legitimate in the context, please read the section in the talk page. Ira Weaver 19:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Last Paragraph

[edit]

That section is ridiculous. The source they take it from is completely biased in favor of Chavez and his reforms. The accusations are very similar to Chavez's claims that the US was involved in the 2002 coup attempt of which he could offer no proof other than rhetoric. If another independent source can be found to verify the existence of such a plot by the CIA than it should be included but for now it should not. This could very well be someone trying to add this in since now there is a chance Chavez could lose the referendum and they want to blame it on the CIA. Is that the case, who knows? But for now with independent verification of these claims they should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.224.43 (talk • contribs) 18:02, November 30, 2007 UTC

IP, please sign your talk page entries by entering four tildes (~~~~) after your post. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Golinger is the person who broke the story, she isnt a member of PSUV or the bolivarian movement, she's a respected lawyer and journalist, she broke the story of the connection between the US and the Coup plotters in 2002 through the National Endownment for Democracy, and has actively pursued the matter of US involvment in Venezuela, it would only be natural that she would be the one to break this story to the non-Venezuelan press. I dont feel this should be dismissed out of hand because of a deep seeded conviction by some that anyone not involved or sympathetic to the opposition are liers and propagandists. Statements, stories, and facts all over Venezuelan related pages are linked to sources like Globovision, National Review, The Wall Street Journal, the U.S. State Department, etc. In all fairness you wouldnt advocate removing whole sections from the Iraq War because the sole references were from the US State Department or organizations and people 'percieved to be sympathetic' to the U.S., the same I would imagine applies here . It sure isnt ethical to omit the existence of the 'claim' outright for these excuses either. We dont, and should not, simply act to omit them, I can see maybe reworking a few sentences to use the term "claim" though even this would be a POV response since the criteria you ask for is quite uneven, it seems to be considered a legitemate event it need be covered by major mainstream media outlets, the kind that have a vested interest in misinforming, on clearly ideological grounds. So I would agree to add to the paragraph somewthing along the lines of "no major media outlets have discussed the claim" or "the claim remains to be verified by mainstream news agencies both in Venezuela and the international press". Ira Weaver 11:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph had some few errors, and they were corrected. I’ve added a link to the proposed intent of the constitutional changes, the website to PSUV and its explaination for the the reforms, it is in no way POV to state their proposed intent. On the paragraph about the meeting with trade unionists, I’ve added the link to the information, and clarified the sentence. Note, the International Marxist Tendancy and its Venezuelan affiliate covered the event.

I’ve re-attached the full paragraph on the demonstrations as well as added information on the latest demostrations. My key reasons for doing this are: The information is completely relavent, directly related and un-ideological. The information is uncontroversial, they are facts, and placed here to give the full scope of the run up to the election, just as any other election has detailed information on the run up to those election (see for example Sierra Leonean general election, 2007, Greek legislative election, 2007, Australian federal election, 2007) and should then not be ommited. devoting a whole separate page to these demonstrations seems to me unneccesary since they are a direct extension of this event., it should be discussed if the page 2007 Venezuelan demonstrations should be deleted.

I have re-instated the last paragraph relating to the ‘claimed’ CIA memo, removed near all the previous sources, linked independent news sources NOT tied to PSUV nor ideological. However I havent been able to get a hold of how to add them properly to the “references” section, can anyone help do this? Ira Weaver 14:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone have any further greivences about the edits, the page or the sources please refer first to the Talk Page here state clearly what greivances then edit.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ira Weaver (talk • contribs) 14:11, 1 December 2007 UTC

"The article Needs Additional Citations for Verification" Banner

[edit]

Who keeps trying to throw red flags anonomously? The page has plenty of independant citations (sources) on it, I see no reason to discredit the reliability, i.e. factual accuracy of the page. Why exactly is that banner up, how would you go about requesting its removal? Ira Weaver 07:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the citations given are not to reliable sources; once the article is reliably sourced per WP:RS and WP:V to independent sources with a reputation for editorial oversight and factchecking, tags can be removed with consensus from other editors. The article is also in and out of a very biased state, with one-sided reporting of issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is, the mistaken sources have been removed. There are two specific sources here which are from PSUV and the International Marxist Current. The first is not bias, its reporting what the 'intended' purpose of the vote by the people who enacted the vote. Its not intended to be bias, nor is it controversial to say that the purpose of the election is to implement a form of socialism, therefore its not an "unreliable source" the second source by IMC I explained in LENGTH why it is legitimate in the context, please read the section in the talk page. Ira Weaver 19:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massive changes without reason

[edit]

Alright, among some of the perplexing things done were these.

In a meeting with trade unionists on November 22 from Union Bolivariana de Trabajadores (UBT), Fuerza Bolivariana de Trabajadores (FBT) and Fuerza Socialista (FS) as well as student activists, Hugo Chavez stated that 46% of the 2008 budget will be allocated to social projects and infrastructure, with 5% of it being directed by community councils[unreliable source?][7].

The source for the meeting was "International Marxist Current". The purpose for the source were 1) that the meeting occured, 2) that Chavez had been quoted as saying that. It was deemed an "unreliable source", This would mean that the source is unreliable in proving that the meeting existed, and 2) that the source is unreliable in its quote. To prove the event HAPPENED, heres a picture of workers and students waiting to enter the Teresa Carreno Theatre where the meeting took place [8], clearly wearing shirts in support of the SI vote, and heres a picture of the front of the theatre on an empty day [9]. As for the actual statement, transcripts of most of Hugo Chavez' speeches are available at the PSUV website (unless their too unreliable to quote there leader, which means removing half the content on the 2008 US presidential election for their unreliable sources and quotes).

Next this replaced the previous paragraph

In November 2007, demonstrations arose in Caracas and six other cities over the proposed constitutional changes. The number of people demonstrating reached an estimated 80,000. Masked gunmen opened fire on students returning from the march to the Central University of Venezuela. At least eight people were injured including one by gunfire. Government officials said the media was partly to blame for inciting discontent and disorder.[1].

Note how the editor didnt seem to care for a source for "demonstrations arose in Caracas and six other cities " nor for the 80,000 marchers estimate, nor continued to explain the event with the masked gunmen beyond insinuating that Chavez goons attacked innocent protestors, rather than what actually, and now universally excepted by all independant media outlets, happened. Th purpose was simple and undeniable, to perpetuate a FALSE story.

During the closing rally of the campaign Chávez warned against a so called Operation Pliers by the CIA. He announced that if this operation was activated he will cut all oil shipments to the US. US officials have called this accusations ridiculous.[2].

This simply omits too much and is written entirely with a POV mindset. "against a so called Operation Pliers" is applicable, however he, his government, state TV, and some news outlets reported this by atleast the 26 of November, not the 30 (the day of the last march). And the second sentance is what you would call "interpretation" in a dergatory sense, the BBC article makes no mention of Operation Pliers (effectively putting the statements out of context). In the last sentance of the paragraph I wrote the point much more neutrally with no "interpretation".

Note how I havent riddled other sources as one way or the other unacceptable, or misrepresented an event, or flagged a section innapropriately to the Admin (thus wasting time) to get a political agenda out, I've done so out of curtousy and respect, a respect i hope is granted in turn by doing things through proper community discussion, rather than anonomously, quickly, and agenda driven. None of these edits were done with reasons and discussion, so, for any continued mass edits, I will edit them back unless proper and detailed reasons are given in the talk page. Ira Weaver 09:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text you are mentioning is already covered in the article about the demonstrations and isn't particularly relevant here. It's also one-sided reporting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well my arguement is that, that page should be deleted (2007 Venezuelan Demonstrations) since its no more than a direct extension of this event, not a stand alone event, the demonstrations arose as a result of the decision to have a vote on the constitutional amendments, and are thus are a direct result, and entirely related to this subject, and dont require a page of its own. And that perticular event (the riot at the University campus) is factual, in which there own members were contacted and present at the scene, they quote andf reference Reuters and other sources in that particular article as well. Its not one sided because that position alludes something else happened, of which there is no proof other than a few biased reports which omit alot of verifiable information (not the least among them an un-edited fifteen minute tape of the events). Ira Weaver 20:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--==CIA conspiracy theory, POV == Decidedly one-sided version added in spite of discussion above, so I've added a POV tag. Please balance the text with respect to WP:UNDUE and reliable sources. Keep in mind that Chavez did this before, with the Wayne Madsen conspiracy theory during the 2002 events. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV? the paragraph is carefully worded to keep nuetrality and not try to legitimize the claim. Please elaborate your claim of POV in detail or the banner goes down. Ira Weaver 21:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carefully worded one-sided arguments don't address WP:UNDUE; please read and respond accordingly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree with SandyGeorgia Firebird 06:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7060225,00.html]
  2. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7121487.stm

Article is a Mess

[edit]

The article is really a mess. I see tons of claims made in the article linking up to unreliable or outright partisan sources. Some commentary is made as well. Hopefully we can fix this up soon since alot of people are going to be viewing this page.--Jersey Devil 07:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it once, and it's back, so I tagged the article. The mess about the students already has its own article and could be a link at most, ditto for the CIA conspiracy theories. With that kind of cleanup mess of WP:UNDUE in the article, I haven't expended the effort to write a real article based on reliable sources. It can be quickly solved by removing the student and CIA poorly written sections and simply linking to those articles; and the article that hasn't even been started can be written. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous editor tacked one sentence on to an entire POV paragraph about a CIA conspiracy theory, but didn't cite the one sentence, although it can easily be cited to dozens of sources. Jersey, adding a cite tag to the one sentence and/or expanding that section rather than deleting the one sentence of easily sourced balance would be good NPOVing.[10] Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your NPOVing pleasure, here's where you can easily source the "ridiculous"[11] sentence you speedy deleted[12] and here's where you can balance the story.[13]. But Operation Pliers is where most of that conspiracy theory is already developed, and it is given WP:UNDUE in this article. There are dozens of sources easily available for neutral editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another source, Romero, Simon (November 30 2007). "In Chávez Territory, Signs of Dissent". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-12-01. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking maybe it could be trimmed and placed into some kind of subsection with the main article linking to it with one of those "main" templates as it doesn't go along well with the section it is in. I would otherwise call for it to be removed entirely however since it was the Venezuelan authorities who have made this claim and since Chavez himself threatened to cut off oil exports to the U.S. over it there should be some mention of it. Though it should be made very clear that these are just allegations.--Jersey Devil 08:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it warrants a full section with a {{main}} template, rather a link to Operation Pliers within one or two sentences (see how the New York Times article above deals with it), but however it's done, the conspiracy theory story right now has undue weight in this article. I've already been reverted by Ira Weaver once when I tried to work on the article, so I'm confining my edits to adding refs, cleaning up refs, and doing the ongoing and extensive MOS cleanup (does *anyone* read WP:MOS?) I've been adding sources as I find them so others can try to write the article comprehensively and neutrally, but the article doesn't even begin to deal with the actual election yet; when I encountered it, it was nothing more than a WP:SOAPBOX about the CIA and a one-sided version of the student protests, with almost no treatment of the actual referendum. Lots of work needed here; not possible if biased editing prevails. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Treybien, why are you deleting date links that conform with WP:MOSDATE;[14] Month-day combos are linked so user preferences will work. I also see you're WP:OVERLINKing common words known to most English speakers. And speaking of MOS, WP:ITALICS and WP:CITE/ES might be helpful here, along with WP:WTA and WP:AWW. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed in article

[edit]
"In a meeting with trade unionists on November 22 from the Unión Bolivariana de Trabajadores (UBT), Fuerza Bolivariana de Trabajadores (FBT) and Fuerza Socialista (FS) as well as student activists, Chávez stated that 46 percent of the 2008 budget will be allocated to social projects and infrastructure, with five percent of it being directed by community councils[unreliable source?].[10]"

Does this mean 5% of the budget aside from the 46%, 5% of the total budget included in the 46% or 5% of the 46%?

KV(Talk) 12:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a need for that text in the article anyway, particularly since it's not sourced to a reliable source and doesn't stay tightly focused on the topic of the article. An article aobut the referendum needs to be written still; cleaning out the unnecessary text will be a start. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page layout and biased sourcing

[edit]

Can someone explain why Venezuelanalysis, a completely biased pro-Chavez source, is being used to source the article when reliable sources are available? Also, the page layout has been rendered unreadable by poor arrangement of images and tables. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a change from a neutral, reliable source (BBC) to a biased source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MOS#Images, avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other. That includes sandwiching text between images and infoboxes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might be wrong, but the BBC article was a run-down of fairly specific parts of the proposed changes. The article from venezuelanalysis is pretty dry... It's just a run-down of _all_ the proposed changes. I realize it's not the best source. OTOH, the spanish article (on spanish wiki) does list every article proposed; and the difference between the BBC article and the one from VA is significant. The source might not be great, but THAT particular article was not biased so far as I could see. The list of proposed changes is important enough, and that's the quickest source I could find. Xavexgoem 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how it appears, Venanalysis will not present a neutral examination of the referendum. Not biased as far as I could see isn't the basis we use for determining sources; we use WP:V and WP:RS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't an examination; it's a translation. I'll try and find a better source, nevertheless. EDIT: I admit, I'm having trouble finding one. Might it be wise to include the amendments for context somewhere on wiki? Dunno what to do here. Xavexgoem 16:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone knowledgeable will eventually find an adequate source and complete the text (from El Universal, El-Nacional or another reliable source, it is most certainly available); for now, it's best to avoid recentism in the rush to add content, and best to stick to reliable sources like the BBC until other material surfaces. I've juggled the images to at least correct the poor layout, but it's still not optimal, because the table at the top creates layout issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

[edit]

The term Article 70 is introduced in the text but never defined in context. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complete list?

[edit]

This "complete list" just added looks like a potential copyvio, which we can't have linked from the main page. It is also sourced to two unreliable sources. Needs to be removed and returned to a summary. This is an encylopedia, after all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "cherry picking" it's summarizing per reliable sources rather than violating copyright via translations. Venanalysis, Wikipedia, and google translations are not reliable sources; pls restore text summarized to reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How to you have the authority to decide what are the "main points" of the proposed reform? The sources cited are the Western media which, many neutral analysis have shown to be disproportionately focusing on some reforms and not others. In fact, I would argue that almost none of the 'summarized' cherry picked reforms are the most significant ones. Thus, there's no way for us to neutrally decide which of the 69 reforms are worth informing people about and which aren't without by definition introducing bias. The Spanish Wikipedia has a full list and thus I don't think it's unreasonable for us to list the full selection.Ottawastudent 18:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"You", who? One of "us" doesn't decide; we report what reliable sources say. I'm not much concerned what the Spanish Wikipedia does, because its standards are different than ours, and I've seen a lot of *really* subpar articles there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying selectivity is an ipso facto political decision which cannot be made apolitical by quoting the putatively unbiased BBC.Ottawastudent 14:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a copyvio as the proposal definitive version as written by the Venezuelan National Assembly is of public domain. However the full proposal is more suited for wikisource. I agree this article must summarize the main proposals as referred by secondary RS. JRSP 18:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JRSP, are you able to find the best source and summarize it a bit more robustly? If so, I can help polish it, but adding in a translation of the entire thing is overkill. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[15] has a nice summary at the end of the article. JRSP 18:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a full list could be created in a nice compact way that doesn't overwhelm the article it should go in otherwise the way it is now is fine.--Jersey Devil 19:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the concern about 'overwhelming' the article seems to be a very minor one in the grand scheme of things. I mean we're reasonably engaged individuals and we're having extreme difficulty finding good sources delineating the entire list. Doesn't this suggest to anybody else that maybe, since the complete list has gone utterly unreported in the Western press and the English media, that we might want to consider including the full list in the one place - Wikipedia - people might look if they're interested. What are we afraid of? Giving people too much information? Ottawastudent 14:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ottawastudent. It will be _very_ difficult to find a citation that has the entire list of articles; or, at any rate, a list of articles with more pertinence than those already on the page (land reform, in particular, and other things that provide context for both the supporters and the opposition as well as the president and administration). If we can't find a citation, we will be relying on translation, and how do you cite that? I don't understand how we can trust ourself to write a fairly unbiased article but not a fairly unbiased translation.
I don't think I'll ever believe in an unbiased news agency, either. Although Venalysis is certainly pro-chavez, it's entirely reasonable to assume that NYT et al is not. How can one link from the NYT a fairly unbiased ARTICLE and claim NYT an unbiased source, and NOT link from VA a fairly unbiased article?Xavexgoem 14:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedic articles don't need to include the full text of proposed legislation; for that, we use something like WikiSource. You might want to review WP:NOT; here, we need to put up an encyclopedic summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, you wrote "Encyclopedic articles don't need to include the full text of proposed legislation." In principle I agree with this statement. The list is still not unbiassed, so present to me your suggestion for an incomplete list that is unbiassed, and I'll support it. It may be generally true that the full text is not required for proposed legislation when you can give the gist of it reasonably accurately through a NPOV. The fact of the matter is that these are 69 more or less unrelated proposals. There's no way to give a NPOV gist of such a proposal WITHOUT quoting the entire thing because any selectivity will have very significant 'silences'.Ottawastudent (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:UNDUE, WP:V and WP:RS, specifically, that Wiki reports what reliable independent secondary sources say according to due weight, and then explain to me what POV is left out according to reliable secondary independent sources? As far as I know, we have included mention of *every* summary item of the proposal that has appeared in a reliable source. We don't present entire primary documents in Wiki; it's an encyclopedia (see WP:NOT). If you believe the current summary is biased, we need to see a reliable source that has not been accorded due weight (not a primary document). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it's really my place to jump in here, but I think there's another solution here. Since clearly we can't provide a complete list. The abridged list could come with a disclaimer explaining that some of the proposed changes listed are among what the media defines as more important amendments. Another solution would be splitting the proposal into two sections, one list including the "positive" changes as listed by Chavez and his supporters, and another listing changes as portrayed by the western media, with a separate section discussing the most criticized parts of the amendment. To be honest, my specific suggestions might be hard to implement or inappropriate. But the general idea I'm suggesting is to note that that there is no absolute NPOV in this section because it seems nearly impossible to escape a "western" POV or even a non-western POV no matter what sources are cited. FantajiFan (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not the entirety, no (although the state by state votes takes up the same amount of room and is even less relevant). The fact remains there are MANY important articles in the proposal that are not mentioned here and are impossible to get a decent source to. OTOH, there remains little in the way of context for the supporters and opponents that would help frame many of these... which I suppose is also 70% of the problem. Regardless, there is a lack of good(?) citations for very relevant data which is creating a mountain of trouble. Xavexgoem 15:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most compact way to put the full list would be an external link to a reliable source (could be a primary source for this case). But I think the article must summarize the most notable points of the reform. I think the BBC article linked above gives a balanced view including controversial points as well as more widely accepted proposals like lowering the voting age, for instance. JRSP 19:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been searching and haven't come up with anything better than the two BBC articles we already have. JRSP, if you know the keywords to search on, can you find anything in the Venzuela press? I tried El Universal etc., but I'm not good at using the search engines there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the full text of the proposal from the CNE site[17] JRSP 00:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify...

[edit]

The news stories report this as a single straight yes-or-no vote, yet there were 69 constitutional amendments? I'm a little confused at how you define where one constitutional amendment ends and the next begins if they're all part of a single vote. Were these numbered items added to the end of the constitution as per the American model? 70.15.116.59 18:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing Headers

[edit]

I apologize for that sweeping change (since reverted), but... IMO, about 50% of this article has material already available on other articles, particularly the CIA bit and the hostage bit. 70% of the text under preliminary process focuses on opposition, support, etc., which imo would fit better under another title. Perhaps Lead, Results, Poll, Process, and Opposition. Or whatever. But currently we have a lot of text on the protests under "preliminary process", and a huge bit on the CIA allegations under its own header. It seems to make the most sense to me to put opposition/CIA details here, and political processes here. Or something. Xavexgoem 19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but trying to write a *real* article that's actually about the election has been a challenge, when those undue sections are included. Most of that text is available elsewhere and could be summarized to a few sentences, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen. The "hostage" bit appears as an attempt to present a one-sided view of the student protests, and the significance of the role played by the students in the outcome hasn't yet been addressed. Perhaps today or tomorrow, one good, definitive summarizing source will come out from which we can write an article about the referendum instead of the related events. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add that this is a strange edit summary, considering the changes had been discussed on talk and there didn't appear to be any disagreement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On my part? It seemed to reduce the amount of undue weight. I admit that I'm mostly trying to make everything nice and compact and reduce the amount of unreliable sources in text. Xavexgoem 20:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted any large scale changes to be discussed here. One of the main reasons I did it was because in place of the "CIA allegations" section there was a sentence saying something like "There have also been allegations of CIA involvement" which seemed to me to be completely out of place. Also the header "Political Process and Opposition" seemed strange to me. Anyway, I understand what you mean. The article is a mess right now. More stuff on the actual process needs to be added in.--Jersey Devil 20:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, my proposal atm is this: move approval process and trade meeting into "proposed modifications" (or delete the trade meeting; I don't see it's significance aside from the money-moving bit, which is tangential but has context were the proposals to go through), retitle "political process" as opposition/protest/whatever, devoting one para to YES voters (lacking), one to NO voters (and their friends in high places), and one to the CIA allegations. Expand the more mundane political process into it's own header when available. Or something like that. I don't know where to look for relevant data on YES voters (BBC, NYT, etc, are not forthcoming, and the rest is in Spanish or from unreliable sources). Thoughts, suggestions, am I being overbearing? Xavexgoem 20:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I'm not being very helpful, X; I'm still digging through sources to see if I can find anything useful and comprehensive. The entire article needs restructuring; JRSP and I avoided these problems in the last Venezuelan elections by getting the structure of the article in place well in advance of the elections, and that helped avoid controversy while in the thick of the elections. Improving the structure while on the main page is hard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are three sections right now which I don't understand why are given so much space: 1) CIA, 2) one incident of the broader issue of student protests and 3) that trade meeting. I see no reason not to delete the trade meeting, the student issues and protests warrant their own section and broader more comprehensive coverage (right now it's biased to one incident and doesn't cover the big picture), and the CIA needs a two- or at most three-sentence summary in the runup to the referendum. I'm not sure I agree on your structure. I see: History (how the process works, how the proposal came about), Proposed modifications (the actual modifications in the referendum), Runup to the referendum (or some such title about precurors to the actual vote), Results (summarize polls in one or two sentences here before adding resuls, since polls are now dated) and Aftermath. Maybe more. That's my idea for a start. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ps, X, don't worry about the final data yet; I'm sure as soon as it's available, it will be added. The gist of the article (a narrow defeat) won't change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll help! :D But I'd rather (maybe as a challenge?) get this done while it remains on the main page before the news itself becomes dated. I don't know policy that well, but since this is a dynamically updated encyclopedia, I wouldn't want things (particularly important things such as) to be relegated only posterity, if you follow me :). And I suppose it's also a question of balance (I'm new to editing big articles like this), because editing down, say, the student bit allows too much "room" for the CIA bit, and vice versa, yadayada. I dunno. Personally, I just want to see how it works out (I'm bored, having fun, but I do take things seriously). Rambling, sorry. Xavexgoem 21:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC) (ps. you are being helpful: you have much experience, and we learn a lot)[reply]
(and by done, I mean stable and readable while it's particularly relevant)Xavexgoem 21:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oh, I completely agree! The job needs to be done, and the sooner the better, and people tend to lose interest later (that's why it was fortunate that JRSP and I put the structure in place prior to the last election, because then all the info just fell into place when the editing got hot). But, the problem now is that we're all running up against WP:3RR, and I can't get any work done in that environment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More issues: Is the ex-wife comment particularly relevant, compared to ex-defense minister comment? Seems far too personal, imo. Preliminary process is problematic and all over the place: approval process, protests, school riot, trade talks, more protests, ex-wife, ex-minister. Instead: approvals placed in proposed modification (makes sense to me), protests (small ref to school?), opinions; and rename that bit Protests (or anything but preliminary process until we have more on the preliminary process). Remove the trade bit: the cit is laughable and not relevant considering the small number of proposals we already have listed in the article. Xavexgoem 15:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-wife is significant to the extent she is an example of how much support he has lost and how even those close to him have waned in support; perhaps you can find a way to work with that without making it too sensational or personal, or maybe you can find something in another one of the articles. Ex-minister is highly significant, as he was one of original Chavez group; that needs to be developed better. I'm working on the approval process in the History and development of the proposal (see below). I'm having a hard time following all of your shorthand above, so I'm not entirely clear on what else you are suggesting. Protests, riots all need to be placed in a broader, more encyclopedic context and framework; the role played by the students, Chavez's waning popularity, the perception that he was pushing too far against democracy and lost support even from his base as a result. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of things. We are working in the same header (preliminary process), so we need to break that up somehow: To my knowledge, you are working on the "behind closed doors" politics (e.g., Initial proposal, NA proposals, voting); I'm working on the demonstrations and the opinions. What I meant in my comment above was that the body of text within the "preliminary process" header is all over the place (or at least was). I suggested changing the name of the header to something else, but that's not so anymore because you're actually working on the preliminary process. What I am doing for the moment is evening out the yes voters and no voters (and I'm working entirely from sources, not having much context). You're right about the ex -wife and -minister; however, it would be nice to have significant opinions that say otherwise, and (hopefully) people inbetween (something to be cited). Thoughts? Xavexgoem (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, I never complete my thoughts. I'm proposing a header for "out in the open" politics, such as rallies, riots, etc.Xavexgoem (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
X, we edit conflicted just as I was typing the same thing to you :-) Just to clarify again so we don't get crossed up, I'm planning to work up a two- or three-sentence summary of history that led to Chavez's proposal to place the entire article in context, the Aug 15 proposal, the date issues of the three votes now dealt with at the top of the "Preliminary process" section, a better cited summary of the actual proposal, and work all that in with the "Proposed modifications" section. I will write one section which gives the background, the process, and the actual proposal, and figure out a better section heading for it. What is now labeled as "Preliminary process" is a very bad heading. I'm working out the process as it relates to the actual proposal; I understood you were working on the reaction and the runup to the actual referendum/election. Is that correct? Don't worry about headings; develop text, and headings will logically follow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. My goal for now is: per yes sentence, 1 no sentence :) not too many sentences, either. Getting a timeline of the rallies is proving difficult (the first yes rally was Nov. 3? What about everything before that? Last no rally was Nov 29?) Xavexgoem (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain on the dates, but try to avoid WP:PROSELINE; the dates for that info aren't as relevant as the effect of the students, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Small confession: I'm no good at writing without a bias. I _WILL_ remove any perceived bias on my part after I transfer it from my sandbox, but I can't guarantee everything will make it through unscathed. Hope this will end with a good organic process and no polemics carried over into the talk page. With that said, any contributions made by myself that are reverted with reason should not count towards anyones 3RR, if I may be so bold. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. I need a break. It's very difficult to incorporate context from my side of the fence, and the citations needed for much of it are said to be unreliable. I might work on something later, but politics I should probably stay away from for the time being. My brain is tired. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuelan Expat Vote

[edit]

Here is some info from the Miami Herald on the Venezuelan expatriate vote. Don't know where to place in in the article at the moment. [18]--Jersey Devil 20:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JerseyDevil, which part of that article interests you? I suggest putting the excerpt here, because Miamiherald links go dead quickly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CIA

[edit]

I dont uderstand why the article is expressed as biased or polarized. It explains that there were allegations of a cia document found however goes on to explain that it was considered to be a fake and the timing was suspicious. And you are wrong this is why wikipedia is such a great tool, power to the people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.185.183 (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original summary of the CIA conspiracy theory is biased and based on a biased source, and is given too much weight and attention per WP:UNDUE. If the entire thing can be reduced to two or three sentences and sourced to reliable sources, then linked to Operation Pliers for detail, it should be fine. See the NYT and BBC treatment of the issue. It's currently blown out of proportion and dominating the article, partly because "the article" hasn't even been written. Unfortunately, it started as a WP:SOAPBOX, and fixing it has proven difficult. We're wasting time messing around with WP:UNDUE issues that need to be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this section has much more info than needed, and that a link should be made to . Here is what I would view as approaching ad nauseum:

"It detailed the CIA’s supposed role in the run up to the December election. It claims over $8 million in the past month to the opposition, transferred through USAID. The document talked about preventive measures taken against the proposed reforms such as "take to the streets and protest with violent, disruptive actions across the nation", "criticize and discredit the National Elections Council" as well as to "coordinate these activities with Ravell & Globovision and international press agencies"."

It...It...It... To my mind, this is an unnecessary (there could be a link instead) list of things that if one were to infer a motive for it; to take up space for 'one side' of an argument. I'm not sure how much info should be in an article like this. However, relative to the size of the entire article, I think this is just too much and a section (maybe the section I quoted?) should be taken out, and a link to Operation Pliers be put in its place...very soon (as this is 'hot news'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.236.67 (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm editing it down. This will give some more bulk to the student hostage bit, unfortunately, but I'm asking that no-one revert it (unless there are problems with its content, of course). My intention is to remove the questionable citations (including the one with the "independent investigator from Washington", which is questionable in and of itself and serves two sides) and just plain shorten it. Xavexgoem 12:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I tried. I don't think there's ever going to be a better cite than the one to counterpunch. Xavexgoem 13:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edits look fine to me.--Jersey Devil 13:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, X, but I edited to balance per WP:UNDUE; we don't give two sentences to a wacky conspiracy theory furthered by one iffy publication, and one brief response when multiple reliable sources have dealt with the issue. Both sides of the discussion are more in balance now. And it should be possible to replace counterpunch with something less biased; remember, the same thing happened in 2002 with the irresponsible Wayne Madsen incident, when the rumors were largely furthered by one publication. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CIA involvement in Latin America is wacky conspiracy theory? But whatever... I understand; nevertheless, I don't trust some anonymous-yet-named independent observer. Besides, it is fairly balanced, if not by sentences: Venezuela gov. says THIS, US gov. says THAT; why make room for this other guy? Xavexgoem 15:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not following you, what "other guy"? Our personal views on CIA involvement in Latin America, past or present, aren't at issue here; reliable sources are. I see you changed analyst to singular, when the New York Times clearly discusses many analysts, in the plural:
  • NYT quote: "A C.I.A. spokesman called the document “a fake,” while analysts, including investigators who had previously uncovered financing of Venezuelan opposition groups by the United States government, expressed doubts about the authenticity of the memo."
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Argh. Sorry, you're right: the cit says analysts, but attributes the timing and non-english-source to just one of them. I'm getting a little too political. Sorry. I'll step out of the CIA bits. Xavexgoem 16:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's no problem, X; you're doing fine :-) Can you add the "s" back, though? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange deletion

[edit]

JerseyDevil, this edit makes no sense to me; that is not rhetoric, it is Chavez's clearly stated goals, well referenced, and this edits strips the lead down to nothing. I can't understand an edit that removes the essence of the referendum from the lead, and I'm afraid making any progress on this article will be difficult with such unilateral editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just think that the intro should be purely about what the referendum was (a vote on 69 amendments to the Constitution) and not Chavez' commentary on what it was. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that it belongs in the article but I think that it would be better to put in the body of the article instead of the intro.--Jersey Devil 04:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagree that a lead that short is of any use, and you didn't put it in the body of the article; you deleted it and the source. So, systematically, the article is being left with no content but a CIA conspiracy theory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know where to put it. The article is so unorganized at this point that I wasn't sure where to put it. Feel free to add it where you wish on the body of the article.--Jersey Devil 05:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't much like to participate in an environment where reverting is taking hold over discussion; it's a waste of time. There is a lot of typing needed here, and it can be best underaken via discussion rather than deletion and reverting. I'm confident you can find a place for the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is cleaner now and perhaps we can begin to build a real article. However, I still strongly disagree with exercising the entire point of the referendum from the lead. If this is re-instated, I'm ready to remove the POV tag, and hopefully we can begin to write based on consensus rather than deletions and reverts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can you clarify "disagree with exercising the entire point of the referendum from the lead"? I don't understand why we "aren't writing" this yet. Would like to know the method. (2 questions, sorry) Xavexgoem 16:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was a clear purpose and reason for the referendum to occur in the first place, that information is clearly relevant to the lead IMO, and yet, JerseyDevil removed it from the lead and hasn't restored it.[19] Why *I* am not writing yet is that I don't exert effort into an article when reverts and deletes are taking place without discussion or against consensus; first, because it's a waste of time, and second, because we run up against WP:3RR and can't get any work done. I'm not willing to put the effort into writing text that is going to be reverted without discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there, although I don't see anything about "the inventor of the true republic and rightful lifelong leader" in the abc citation. Xavexgoem 17:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So now you see the reason for the need to seriously attach a specific citation to any direct quote :-)) Yes, we may to rework that wording, but there are almost no sources which don't give us plenty to work with, since it was Chavez's initiative, and he did have a reason for it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

[edit]

This article is absolutely full of it. First of all, why are there no pictures of the opositionist activities? Second, there is no mention of the irregularities during the process, like how several machines failed, and how the results were kept in hold for 4 hours, the National Guard attacking the oppositionist witnesses and not allowing them enter the CNE building, among others. Third, the Allegations of CIA involvement part is absolutely biased and has little to do with the article, Chavez has said the same thing about hundreds of activities. Infact, the whole list of mentions should be either merged with the CIA article, the Chavez article or spawn a new article. Fourth, the proposed modifications are interpreted in a different way than actually written. It is said, textually, that there only private property would exist for basic necessities or goods that are being used. I find that worth to mention. The working hours would be reduced from 40 to 36, but the working week would include Saturdays too. Eliminating the limits imposed in calling a State of Emergency and would be able to call it indefinitely.

I believe the article should be rewritten from scratch.190.79.58.11 17:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

give us sources. Xavexgoem 17:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not troubled by the images; we have what we have, and often, we just don't have access to free images that can be used on Wiki. Irregularities can be added once we have the sources; we should add that to the list above, and begin looking for sources. I'm OK with the CIA section now, because that's all the material we have to work with, and we can't really leave it out because it was a notable event (notable in terms of how Wiki defines it). As to the analysis of this being something Chávez and/or the left-wing press routinely does, we can't really deal with that until/unless a reliable source gives us something to work with. I was planning to work on the Project proposal section myself, since that requires reading English and Spanish and integrating all the sources, and I've been able to work well with JRSP on text like that in the past. Yes, the entire article still needs to be constructed, neutralized and made more comprehensive; currently, there is almost nothing of interest or relevance in this article except the actual results, and before we could start writing, we had to deconstruct the WP:SOAPBOX article that was created before the Referendum. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, IP, I see you're editing from CANTV; it would be stupendous if you would throw some Venezuelan sources up here so I don't have to go looking for them. I can read Spanish, but having to search for articles in the Venezuelan press when I don't know the search terms is hard for me. Add some links that we can work with, and if you can find things at El Universal's English news page,[20] even better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you are telling me that no one around here is actually Venezuelan? Ok, so ,about sources. These are very recent news and to be honest with you, Venezuela isn't really advanced in what the internet community aboards. The most I can find is on television and radio. www.globovision.com is the webpage of a venezuelan oppositionist tv channel. Venezolana de Television is a venezuelan officialist television channel (Google the webpage, I don't know it). El Universal and El Nacional are both oppositionist newspapers, both have webpages. Tal Cual is an officialist newspaper, webpage is http://www.talcualdigital.com/ . These are the most reliable sources right now. All are on spanish, unfortunately. I can traduce some of them for you, but I frankly have no time to do all. And search terms, searching Referendum 2007 and skipping to the Venezuelan results should get you all the information about it. Otherwise, most of the sources I listed you have a see recent news system. Everything from Saturday to Monday should have news about it. Sunday should have everything about the actual process of the referendum. Images I admit that they are hard to find.

About the denial of entry of the witnesses http://www.el-nacional.com/www/site/detalle_noticia.php?q=nodo/4987 (Venezuelan press, Spanish) 55 arrested for electoral crime: http://politica.eluniversal.com/2007/12/04/pol_art_se-incrementa-a-55-l_624441.shtml (Venezuelan press, Spanish)

You should be able to find all the things I told you about in the sites and sources I listed.190.79.58.11 20:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you are telling me that no one around here is actually Venezuelan? Oh, I'll go one better than that. I'll tell you my Venezuelan comadres and compadres have been massively negligent, and have allowed others to write their history and destiny. I can translate, and I know all of the Venezuelan reliable sources and their respective biases (and limitations on writing because of lack of freedom of the press), but it is very hard for me to effectively search on those sites, I would love some help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A note on citations

[edit]

Hey, X, while this edit most likely makes perfect sense to "all of us", technically, direct quotes must always be cited, so it would probably be better to leave the named ref tag on those. If not, someone may come along and tag the quote as needing a cite :-) All you have to do is add back the <ref name = business, with a close /. Sorry to be such a nit-picker on the little details, but these are things I've learned at WP:FAC and WP:FAR, and we might as well get them right from the get-go. Besides, I like seeing relatively new editors learn WP:MOS correctly :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fixed, thanks for the advice Xavexgoem 17:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote tally needs to be addressed

[edit]

The template that includes the vote tally has seen several changes, but the citation has not been updated, and the as of date was removed. We no longer know what data we are looking at. Is that final data or preliminary (in which case, it needs an as of date)? If so, the citation needs to be updated at Template:Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2007‎ and Template:Venezuelan constitutional referendum by state, 2007‎. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 4 December

I've actually got no info about the tally by state. I don't know where that information came from. The tally of the first report is accurate in the article, however.190.79.58.11 20:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History and process

[edit]

I'm beginning a rewrite of the history, process and what the actual referendum proposal was.

All sources agree there were initially 33 changes proposed by Chavez. To be sorted out:

  • VenAnalysis says:
    • Block "A" includes President Chavez's original proposal, as amended by the National Assembly, which would change 33 articles out of the 350 articles in the constitution. Also included in block A are another 13 articles introduced by the National Assembly. Block "B" includes another 26 reform articles proposed by the National Assembly.
      • So, 33 + 13 = 46 in Block A, plus 26 in Block B for total of 72 changes
  • BBC says:
    • Mr Chavez proposed 33 changes, and the National Assembly, which is composed of his supporters, put forward a further 36 amendments.
      • So, 33 + 36 = 69. Hello? VenAnalysis says National Assembly put forward 13+26=39, while BBC says 36, off by 3. BBC here also says 36. Mercury news also says 69. So, where is VenAnalysis getting the 72? Just to make things better, Maldive news says 25 (not 26) were added by the National Assembly.
      • Can someone find an El Nacional or El Universal summary of the actual referendum, so we can resolve this from a good source ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've now reviewed every source linked on the article and the talk page, and they all say 69 changes, except the VenAnalysis translation which says 72, so that leaves me stuck on the supposed only translation we have. I'll work around it unless someone can resolve. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BBC says
    • The changes, which would affect about a quarter of the constitution's articles, were approved by the National Assembly, which is controlled by President Hugo Chavez's supporters.


Block A proposed modifying 46=33+13 articles and Block B, 23 not 26. JRSP (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JRSP, are you going to be online tonight? I'm trying to rework some material, but I would like for you to review it before I add it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll check from time to time. BTW here's the source for the (33+13)+23=69 articles[21]. JRSP (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to work all day and have been interrupted a million times; writing this article shouldn't be this hard <grrrr ... > ... I'm settled on the 69 now. Will try to finish up in the next hour or so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've been distracted by my talk page lighting up all day, but I've got a draft here. I would

  • replace the "Proposed modifications" section with this, titled just "Proposal"
  • remove the first paragraph from "Preliminary process",
  • rename Preliminary process to "Pre-referendum reaction". (Maybe we'll think of something better later?)

I'm not saying this is finished yet, but it's more comprehensive than what is there now, particularly for non-Venezuelans who don't know the process. Also, I don't know why the current text says the final approval was Nov 3rd, when the news reports are Nov 2nd. I couldn't source the final line of the proposed changes, so I removed it, leaving only what was mentioned in those 3 sources, which seem to cover most of the points. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • The final proposal included 69 constitutional amendments to be voted on in two blocks: 33 that were originally proposed by President Chávez (Proposal A) and 36 by the National Assembly (Proposal B). Not really: The 33 Chávez proposals plus 13 from the Assembly were in Block A. The remaining 23, all proposed by the Assembly were in block B.
  • Summary list of proposals: "end the autonomy of the central bank" and "place the president in charge of administering the country's international reserves" can be merged to a single item.
  • "Pre-referendum reaction" is fine if we take out the first paragraph but the section needs balancing as only "no" reactions are reported.
  • The Nov 2-Nov 3 discrepancy might be some minor bureaucratic issue, perhaps it was voted on Nov 2 and presented to the CNE on Nov 3, let me check for details.

JRSP (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes indeed, the results were given on the 3rd, even if the voting was on the 2nd. There was a four hour holdup from when the votes counted reached 86%, if im not mistaken. I should find a source on that. The voting closed at 6pm, but because of technical issues it was holded up. Results were given on 1:48 AM of the following day, on a nationwide forced broadcast (It is required by law to be done that way) by CNE's president Tibisay Lucena.190.79.58.11 (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Sandy, they're talking about November 2, they refer to the approval of the proposal in 3rd discussion by the Assembly. The proposal was approved and presented to the CNE on Nov 2[22]. CNE aproved the referendum the same day "casi a la medianoche de este viernes" (Nov 2)[23] so I think the November 3 date is just wrong. JRSP (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you; IP is confused :-) We're talking about the November issue, not the December delay. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

[edit]

Can anyone else start adding to the Response section? We need to expand domestic and international reactions; I added only a few obvious and easy to find ones. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, we still need to complete this list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This subsection gives too much weight to USA politicians. I'm specially concerned about Robert Noriega's comment that "he believed the margin of victory was broader". This comment was answered by a couple of CNE rectors (one of them widely considered pro-opposition) [24][25], we would need to add their comments for balance or simply delete Noriega's comment. JRSP (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just adding everything I could pull out of that one source just to get the section started; makes no difference to me. Would you mind working on it? If we can keep reactions within a few sources, our ref list won't grow out of control. I have no problem with deleting Noriega, but don't have time to dig up other sources; we need more non-USA as well as domestic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources: mercopress.com has a nice summary but I don't know if it is a RS, they look fine but I had never heard about them. Also market reactions, OAS, and Brazil.

JRSP (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting on this; I don't know how much time I'll be able to put in today, but will try. X, don't worry about the prose, grammar, etc.; if you get the text added, someone will come along and fix anything needed. JRSP, Mercopress seems fine for this purpose; I suppose since it represents MercoSur, it could be considered biased for some other types of articles (trade, etc.), but I like using one article that summarizes many positions, over adding a long list of new sources. I wish we could have a domestic reaction summary before international. X, on some of the other sections you still want to write, some of the sources already employed in the article may be useful. I focused yesterday on adding the most comprehensive summaries that came out "the day after", so you might want to review all of those for any useful content. I was focusing on the layout and getting a WP:LEAD in place, as the lack of one was embarrassing. It would be great if we could add enough balance to remove the tags, and then later fill in other details and polish. I would have started on the student issues, but I believe you had already started work on that section, so didn't want to get in your way. I'm still not clear if the vote tallies are final, and if the source included on them is the correct and most recent one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'll be able to do student issues. For the moment, I'm best at adding/removing things already written, although that may change throughout the day (wikiogre) ;) Feel free to start, anyone.
BTW: Sandy, you've been amazing, and you have certainly impressed this lowly newbie :D Xavexgoem (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
X, it is a pleasure to work with a committted newbie, willing to dig in to a controversial article that is linked to the main page ... that's a steep learning curve :-) For an article that's not on the main page, learning about the manual of style issues can take more time it doesn't all have to be correct, but seeing MOS breaches on the main page is like fingernails on a blackboard to me :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. I do try, though! The MOS is rather large, but I'm working on it :) Xavexgoem (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oh, my, X, no need to apologize, I didn't mean to imply you had introduced MOS errors, only to explain why I focused on cleanup when there is still so much text to be written :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't rush the post-electoral analysis as more interesting RS reports will surely appear in one or two weeks. I also think there is too much weight on the Central University incident. I understand this kind of news are good for selling newspapers but it hardly reflects the general peaceful spirit of demostrations from both sides. In fact, I only know of a single dead due to political violence (a chavista BTW, in another incident in Valencia) but generally speaking electoral campaign activities were more on the peaceful side. JRSP (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; I'd like to see some focus on the fact that the reason the protests had an effect this time is that the students weren't aligned with the old opposition, and had their own agenda, and largely achieved it peacefully. I don't think we need to overplay a few reports that make the entire effort appear dominated by violence, while sacrificing the overall picture of the effort. A broader brush of the impact, rather than individual incidents, is a good thing. The student role was instrumental here precisely because they weren't aligned strongly with the old guard, so to speak. Then that leads to the post-analysis of what role they will play in Venezuela's future and how their involvement will shape future politics, but that's a chapter to be written well down the road :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, a note for X on student issues; one way to write the content you want to write may be to focus on beefing up an completing 2007 Venezuelan demonstrations, and then we can summarize that article back to this article. Working there will allow you an easier learning curve, as that article isn't on the mainpage and you'll have more leeway to work :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reconsolidated the "work to be done still" lists at the top of the talk page: I have a full day and a lot on my plate, so I'm sure hoping someone else will start to tackle the list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict on Evo Morales

[edit]

I got an edit conflict with this Evo Morales addition after massive work; now I see it was sourced to VenAnalysis, does anyone have a reliable source so I can re-add it? Still working through the list above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about part of the proposal

[edit]

I noticed this part under the proposal section:

The proposal also included the creation of a "Popular power" which "isn't born from any kind of vote", changing the principles of Venezuela from "social justice, democracy" to "socialist, anti-imperialist", and changing the army from "National Armed Force" to "Bolivarian Armed Force"; this army would be "patriotic, popular and anti-imperialist".

And I'm wondering if this has any sort of legal force or connects to any concrete proposals or whether it is just rhetoric and if it is rhetoric is in the proposed constitution itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the proposed contitution itself but was not in any preceding proposals. SG2090 (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know; someone else added it, and its source appears to be a radical far-left interpretation of the proposal, I can't vouch for its accuracy or reliability. Others will need to decide if it should be included or deleted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well we should not have it if it is a radical far-left proposal. SG2090 (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be great to get an english cite of all the proposals from the spanish text. atm, none exist aside from those available at counterpunch, VA, etc: all unreliable. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually there is a good ASAID summary, but the same bias claims can be made about their interpretation. If the VenAnalysis/ZNet interpretation is left in the article (I don't believe it should be), then the ASAID version should be added for balance. My opinion is that neither should be included, and we should stick to neutral sources, as I had written it before the VenAnalysis text was added. For neutrality, I recommend deleting that paragraph, as the summary I added above the new paragraph is an extract from everything said in all of the reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We won't know If this renaming would have gone beside rethoric. President Chavez uses this kind of changes for political ends (take a look at the venezuelan flag, he added one star (it was seven, now it's eight) and he use this aparently rethoric change for political gain (the motto for the Copa America was "an eight star cup", for example). It's highly probable he will use the anti-imperialist part to strenght the fight against USA. By the way, you can find the proposal with no bias here [[26]], in spanish. The articles in question are 328 (the army one) 136 (the popular power one) amd 299 (The Venezuelan principles one) ... now my question, why this three changes are separated? Floreshdez (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have the actual proposal linked in the article, but it's a primary source, and we're better off sticking with secondary reliable source summaries of the document (especially since it's so long). I'm not sure what your question is ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the changes are separted in "bullets" (as Microsoft Word name it, those dots), those 3 changes are in one paragraph ... why? Those changes were equally important in the outcome of the election Floreshdez (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ah, ok, now I understand your question. Because the bullet list is a summary of reliable, secondary, independent sources, according to WP:V and WP:RS and they are all cited to those sources. The additional points in the separate paragraph are not sourced to a reliable, secondary source, they come from a biased non-reliable source, and there is consensus here that they should be deleted because they are not reliably sourced points and are not mentioned by reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But, why? A summarize secondary source analysis can be biased, but the actual proposal can't be biased. I understand Wikipedia's Verifiability source, asking for secondary source. But in this case, I think is better to stick with the actual reform, don't you? Floreshdez (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. First, see WP:V. Second, the actual reform is much too lengthy to include, and any summary we do of it would be original research (in terms of relevance of what to include and translation). Wiki reports what independent, secondary reliable sources say about primary sources. Independent sources have summarized what they consider to be the important points; that's what Wiki reports. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we go this way, we'll end up mentioning that Caracas would have been known as "queen of the Waraira-Repano". I think the guideline should be that notable points of the proposal should be those highlighted by most reliable sources. JRSP (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning proposal: might it be best to add what were Chavez's initial proposals, and what the NA added onto it? For example, sexual orientation and work week is (iirc) something the NA added. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone has a reliable source upon which we can base that distinction, I agree, but personally, when there is still SO much work to be done on completing the rest of this article, I'm not going to take my time to read through so much Spanish to sort that out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates disrupting flow of text and article

[edit]
Regarding this edit, copy of a talk page note I left for Nightstallion (talk · contribs).

Please see the note I left here quite a bit ago. Those templates are horribly formatted, and destroy the formatting of the main article. The results should be arranged side by side, or the template should allow for right alignment so text can be added on the left. I tried, and am unable to make those corrections; I don't "speak HTML", and that template code was removed from the main tally template that was created by someone else. Adding horribly designed templates that disrupt the flow of the text to the middle of an article that is on the main page is not a good idea, IMO. I've moved the templates to the bottom, but they still disrupt the entire article, causing the reader to have to scan a lot of info they won't care about in order to reach the sources, etc. at the bottom of the article. Please help address this if you feel so strongly about including that info in the article, because right now, those templates are truly ugly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full results

[edit]

Full results are in at http://www.cne.gov.ve/noticiaDetallada.php?id=4354 -- I'll update the election results template on Monday, if noone does it by then. (I'd prefer it if someone else could do it before then, though.) —Nightstallion 14:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to update the template, but the table design contains too much original research; I can't make the numbers add up considering the vote tallies in each block are different, and the double 100% don't make sense, and I don't know which total is being used (Block A or B). Also, the source doesn't seem to indicate these are final results (only 94% counted), so I'm not sure it's worth the trouble. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek article

[edit]

This certainly seems interesting:

But by midweek enough information had emerged to conclude that Chávez did, in fact, try to overturn the results. As reported in El Nacional, and confirmed to me by an intelligence source, the Venezuelan military high command virtually threatened him with a coup d'état if he insisted on doing so. Finally, after a late-night phone call from Raúl Isaías Baduel, a budding opposition leader and former Chávez comrade in arms, the president conceded—but with one condition: he demanded his margin of defeat be reduced to a bare minimum in official tallies, so he could save face and appear as a magnanimous democrat in the eyes of the world.

[27].

DJ CreamityOh Yeah! 20:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, status quo. It may surprise non-Venezuelans to realize that the military in Venezuela are highly regarded, generally democratic, and still respectful of the people first, even after Chávez's purge of the military. Some sort of content along the lines of the segment above should eventually be added, but more time may be needed to avoid recentism and obtain the most reliable sources, as the story develops. (So far, The Economist link in the article touches upon some of the other undeveloped issues in this article.) As the article currently stands, the magnitude of Chavez's loss isn't made clear; it is the millions of voters who abstained, compared to the number that supported him in previous votes, that demonstrate how large the loss was. The current article focus on the narrow margin in the vote is a bit misleading. Seven million people voted for him a year ago, only four million did this time; reliable sources have dealt with this, but this point hasn't yet been developed in the article. The brouhaha that went on election night hasn't been developed yet, nor have the irregularities been discussed (see citation list above). Not enough hours in the day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This rumor has been denied by main oposition parties Un Nuevo Tiempo[28], Primero Justicia[29], the Venezuelan military high command[30] and the CNE[31]. JRSP (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And of course, that would be included; just as the CIA rumors, which are based on non-reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, just be sure to attribute the "analysis" to Jorge Castañeda[32][33]. He's not my concept of neutral, a very polemic man indeed. JRSP (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'd use the source above anyway; it's a Newsweek "web exclusive", whatever that means. As I said, I suggest we wait until more reliable sources cover the issue as the story develops. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Aftermatch" Article

[edit]

Jack Daniel, Frank (3-1-2008). "Venezuela's Chavez reshuffles cabinet afterdefeat". Reuters. Retrieved 3-1-2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)

Interesting stuff, but I'm mostly wondering whether Reuters archives. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about that. I'm almost sure they archive but in any case you can always count on archive.org. (http://www.archive.org ) --JRSP (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2007. 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) 03:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stratfor

[edit]

@WMrapids: Could you please mention how did you get the recently introduced information? Both links are dead and Web Archive doesn't throw any results: [34][35]. NoonIcarus (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google. WMrapids (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rude. It's your responsibility to ensure the verifiability of the content. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WMrapids: Thanks for correcting the deadlinks on 10:45, 12 March 2024.
@NoonIcarus: When you accused WMrapids of being rude, had you not noticed that s/he had already corrected the deadlinks six hours earlier? Did you even try to correct the deadlinks before you made the initial post? I think an apology is in order. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&oldid=1214432654"