Elections and Referendums C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Venezuela C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Venezuela, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Venezuela on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VenezuelaWikipedia:WikiProject VenezuelaTemplate:WikiProject VenezuelaVenezuela articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The process so far has ton of irregularities in its process that should be explained in the article and translated from the Spanish Wikipedia. I'd love to give a hand if needed. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamez42: I don't know how to explain the irregularities, but I have tried to incorporate how broad the election has become. Any links discussing irregularities?----ZiaLater (talk) 04:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ZiaLater:Sure thing. Just to clarify, for the moment only the presidential elections are official; the Electoral Council has yet to decide if the elections will also be parliamentary.

• The Venezuelan Electoral Observatory has voiced their concern that 74 days isn't enough time to guarantee electoral rights.[1]
• The Citizen Electoral Network, along with other NGOs and politicians, question that the elections date were summoned by the Constituent Assembly and complain that it is usurping Electoral Council's functions.[2]
• Súmate and Voto Joven, along with other NGOs, have expressed that the electoral calendar is shorter than six months contemplated in the electoral law, unlike previous elections but like the last municipality elections, giving no time for processes like the update of the electoral registry.[3][4] For example, while this process took two months in the 2012 presidential elections, the process was only ten days long this year, and 1300 centers were deployed contrary to the 531 during these elections.
• According to the Electoral Council, there are only 101,595 voters abroad the country, a number way much smaller than other estimates of the Bolivarian diaspora, of around between two and four million. Even though only the ID card is needed to vote, embassies and consulates have previously asked voters for other documents such as passports, original birth certificates, residency letters and other requirements not contemplated in the law.[5]

But of course, these are only technical irregularities in the announcement and the preparation for the elections. Most of the complaints address the disqualification of most of the opposition candidates and parties and that there are many centers that remain relocated from the last regional elections. I would have to look after media outlets in English that have explained the problems above, if any. On top of that, there are all of the irregularites from the previous elections, such as use of State resources for the GPP candidates' campaigns, lack of exposure of opposition candidates in the media, bribes, threatened or pressured voters, among others that have yet to be reported on the election day.--Jamez42 (talk) 05:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular reason to use blue as the color to identify Falcón? Blue is strongly associated with MUD and Falcón is not a MUD candidate. In Spanish orange it’s been use for him as is one of the colors of his party’s flag. Also in the case of Bertolucci green may be more suitable as his campaign logo uses a lot of it. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let know those interested that the electoral campaign started two days ago and that it will be 26 days long. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All lot of these NGOs are led by the Venezuelan opposition. Foro Penal provided free legal assistance to those involved in the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt against Hugo Chavez (see their article) and Súmate is funded by the US government and is led by María Corina Machado, a member of the anti-Maduro Come Venezuela political party (again see relevant articles).ApolloCarmb (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ApolloCarmb: Why are "lot of these NGOs led by the Venezuelan opposition"? Do you have sources or references that prove it? I've counted seven NGOs out of the two named, most of which don't have an article. Why are they opposition led?

Did you also know, for instance, that the Llaguno Overpass shooting was an important event before the 2002 coup and that Foro Penal assisted many of the wounded protestors and the relatives of the persons killed? Foro Penal'so legal assistance included help to the relatives of 16 persons killed of which, it should be noted, there were government supporters and opponents alike and that the government has still not found the responsibles of the murders. I'm adding the sources that show that Foro Penal's statutes forbid members to be related to politics.[6][7][8] Did you also know that Súmate was cofounded by Alejandro Plaz, and María Corina stopped working in Súmate once she started running in politics for the National Assembly, when she funded her political party Come Venezuela and now started the Soy Venezuela organization? She also founded the less known NGO Atenea around 30 years ago way before she was involved in politics, it doesn't mean that Atenea, for example, is opposition led.

Even if these claims are true and all of the NGOs are "opposition led", this is still an ad hominem argument and does not adress the denouncements of the irregularities. Three months ago I already made a briefing above in this talk page. It is a well known fact that Súmate is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy and it is a common scapegoat of the government, but it does not mean that its complaints are any less valid. Hinterlaces is a well known progovernment pollster cited in the article and whose director Oscar Schemel [es] is a member of the National Constituent Assembly, but I haven't said that it shouldn't be quoted in the article. If there are electoral experts, observers or NGO that refute these points and claims, feel free to add them, it would help with the perspective of the article and show if there's really a disagreement that these elections are irregular. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes included as of my last edit appear fine as they are from notable individuals and directly related to the article.----ZiaLater (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:ZiaLater gain a consensus here please.ApolloCarmb (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ApolloCarmb: Isn't adding two boxes instead of around six a consensus? What would be a middle point in this case? Discussion and suggestions are needed to reach this consensus. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, so discuss and dont blindly revert.ApolloCarmb (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)}}[reply]

@ApolloCarmb: I have not reverted the contested information since I've discussed in the talk page. Discussing is exactly what I'm trying to do asking how many and which quote boxes are acceptable to include, because the opposite is also true: there is no consensus to delete all the quote boxes. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above in my previous post on this talk page, the two quotes included in that edit were fine. It only seems like you are the only one who is troubled by these quotes which are not even anti-Maduro. The quote regarding Ramos Allup shows the division of the opposition. The quote involving the EU, which represents multiple countries on the world stage, is notable and regards the electoral process instead of Maduro.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The second quote implicitly condemns Maduro. I fail to see the need for those quote boxes.ApolloCarmb (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"We deeply regret that elections were summoned without a broad agreement of its schedule nor of the conditions for a inclusive and credible electoral process". We are allowed to judge what is implicit on Wikipedia? Actually, we are not, your judgement is purely subjective. Are you saying that the CNE/Venezuelan government = Maduro? I do not see Maduro's name in the quote.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You criticize me for saying they are implicitly condemning Maduro because "We are allowed to judge what is implicit on Wikipedia?" but yet you have stated "The quote involving the EU, which represents multiple countries on the world stage, is notable and regards the electoral process instead of Maduro". Do you not see the hypocrisy there?ApolloCarmb (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want this to escalate further, so I'm pinging other editors involved hoping that there's a better discussion @Plastikspork: @David O. Johnson: @Leftwinguy92: @Stalin990: @Marco Antonio Merchán: @Dereck Camacho: @Patapsco913: --Jamez42 (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging other users as well, @Panam2014:, @Softlavender:, @SandyGeorgia:, @Holy Goo:. Hope this provides more sets of eyes that are needed.----ZiaLater (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we see the quotes in question? In any case if the quotes are too controversial it might be a good idea to avoid them as they can caused edit waring. But I can't judge w/o looking at them first. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dereck Camacho: These are the original four [9] (Beatriz Borges' quote should only be once) and these are the latest two that wanted to be included [10] --Jamez42 (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yeah 93: Should the home state of the candidate by their residency or their birthplace? Bertucci was born in Guanare, Portuguesa. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In US elections, the states where the candidate resides is the one used. Bertucci lives in Northern Valencia, and votes in San Diego. --yeah_93 (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a section of the article is split in case it continues growing. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what you mean by that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.35.247.10 (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That a section is moved to a new article, such as the results. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently editing extensively in the Spanish article about the election day and I don't have enough time to translate before the results. I'd really appreciate if someone is interesting in helping in the translation. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The CNE turnout numbers have recently been described as "inflated" as it is called a pro-government entity. In a controversial setting like Venezuela, independent observers often make their own turnout estimates as well.----ZiaLater (talk) 03:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Iñaki Salazar:, for the time being I won't do a follow up of the discussion because I've kept working in the Spanish article, but to answer one of your edit summaries: these numbers are not unverified. Besides being referenced, Meganálisis published five bulletins before the final independent estimate. There are other estimates, some closer to the number given by the CNE, so they can be added as a range once they're included, but given the electoral history in Venezuela it is important to include independent numbers. --Jamez42 (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like @HapHaxion: has added one of them, I'll ping them here. --Jamez42 (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Range of estimates

Here are some numbers to show the range of results.----ZiaLater (talk) 03:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 17.32% (independent est.)^[1][2]

• 25.8% (opposition estimates)^[3]

Just in case this becomes a subject of contention and people end up calling for a consensus, I just want to say ahead of time that I am _emphatically_ for keeping these numbers in their current place on the page. I'm glad it hasn't become a source of contention yet. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that 17%, which comes from some random website with no actual source listed other than "our researchers", whose YouTube channel has literally 31 subscribers and whose videos average like 90 views, considered an accurate number at all? Anyone can make an infographic. -- SatanicSanta 18:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GOOGLETEST. Meganálisis is not a random website, it is a pollster that has been quoted five times in the public opinon section, as well as in other elections articles. I personally prefer to include in the infobox the number as 17.32-25.8% (independent est.) for the sake of neutrality sinc other estimates differ widely. If I recall correctly the Spanish version of the section also offers more conservative estimates. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the infobox, the Spanish article only contains the official number of 46%. -- SatanicSanta 19:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And can you point to the specific policy because Googling "meganalisis" yields pretty much exclusively their own social media accounts. I'm not seeing the importance of their "research" aside from that a couple already oppositionist news sources (Huffington Post and Venezuela al Día, as referenced on the article) have referenced their infographic. If anything, if the 17% must be included there it should be listed as "opposition est." not "independent est.". This is a clear bias against the government, the Chavista movement, and the respective parties associated with it (PSUV, GPP, etc.) -- SatanicSanta 19:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that with the same argument it could be said that Meganálisis notability is demonstrated by having 117 thousand followers in Twitter. The estimate was removed in the Spanish infobox because and consensus lean towards. In any case I think it's alright to name it as an opposition estimate, what I want to stress is that other estimates besides the official one should be included. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, considering the YouTube channel linked in their Twitter bio has basically no viewership, I am skeptical of the legitimacy of those 117 thousand followers. Surely some of those followers would have clicked on that link and watched some of their videos and perhaps subscribed, no? Their tweets before the election, even only a week prior, usually would get like 2 retweet and 5 likes, maybe a reply. I only have like 900 followers on Twitter but my tweets are regularly liked and retweeted by at least 50 people I don't know depending on the content. The follower count to activity on their posts is seriously abnormal. -- SatanicSanta 21:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meganalisis is often cited in Venezuelan media and occasionally in international media. It is notable.----ZiaLater (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On your map Belarus looks like do not recognize election. On this monent official position not yet announced but I sure belarusian goverment will recognize this election, because Chavez and Maduro are friends of Lukashenko. http://www.belta.by/politics/view/fotofakt-na-izbiratelnom-uchastke-v-minske-prohodjat-vybory-prezidenta-bolivarianskoj-respubliki-303417-2018/ Sad but true)Sturisoma (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturisoma: Working on it right now.----ZiaLater (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well. As I say about Belarus: https://news.tut.by/economics/593600.html Title translate - "Democracy win in Venezuela again"Sturisoma (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone consolidate the sources in the lede so it does not look like Wikipedia:OVERKILL? I can in a bit, but if someone wants to do this now, it would be helpful.----ZiaLater (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Got it.----ZiaLater (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the lede, the sources state that the United Nations has not recognized the democratic process in Venezuela. Recent edits have tried to downplay this information. The information must be restored.----ZiaLater (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

here is the source^[4] and Belarus also recognizes elections ^[5]Fentrejones (talk) 1:04 May 22, 2018 (UTC)

 Done ----ZiaLater (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of Europe is coloured in red due to a statement made by somebody in the EU Parliament. There is no evidence that all of the countries which are in the EU reject the validity of this election. The EU isn't a "country", different sovereign countries in the EU have different views on all mattr of things. Where is the evidence that, for example, all European nations have recalled their ambassadors from Venezuela or stated that they specifically reject the validity of the elections? IMO this is intentionally misleading to bolster the propaganda of the United States government. Claíomh Solais (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly you'll want to stop the hysteria. Your rambling about how the map is a machination that benefits the USG doesn't help your argument; it just proves that it is fucking dumbshit. if you have evidence that there is no evidence that all of the countries which are in the EU reject the validity of this election, then prove it otherwise stop wasting everybody's time with your meaningless soapboxing and move the hell on already. Wingwraith (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wingwraith: First, stop the harassment.

Second, the map has been updated and many of these countries have released their own official declarations.----ZiaLater (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to this edit, per WP:PUS I've removed all of the material which is sourced to telesur but do not express the views of the governments of Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Uruguay, and Bolivia. Wingwraith (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wingwraith: We understand that TeleSUR is a biased source, but I assure you that the support by such governments is accurate. I will find better sources in the meantime, however, though we can keep the TeleSUR for now to help maintain a NPOV (United Nations, European Union, etc. is quite the large POV against the elections). Discuss before we remove TeleSUR again. I have a few sources I am working with right now.----ZiaLater (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – China ----ZiaLater (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Russia ----ZiaLater (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea and Antigua and Barbuda are missing from the map. Could they be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.62.87.16 (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ----ZiaLater (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some images were recently removed from the "Background" section with the edit summary saying they were there for "shock value". These images provide a background regarding the electoral conditions and concerns facing Venezuela's decision. Discuss before removing this again.----ZiaLater (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi According to CNE, he is a registrated as COPEI candidate. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should we create an article for legislative councils election ? Or add the results here ? --Panam2014 (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]