Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:Hello {{U|SandyGeorgia}}; I agree with you, it is an encyclopedia, not a congress of PowerPoints. Besides, I don't agree with having a map that includes half of a sovereign state (Guyana) in the main box. ] (]) 12:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:Hello {{U|SandyGeorgia}}; I agree with you, it is an encyclopedia, not a congress of PowerPoints. Besides, I don't agree with having a map that includes half of a sovereign state (Guyana) in the main box. ] (]) 12:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::It's gone out of control. {{pb}} {{u|Dustfreeworld}}, when you , citing PRESERVE, I'd remind you to also contemplate ] and ]. There are three images of Machado and Gonzalez with his wife that are all essentially the same thing, and two images of Maduro that are essentially demonstrating the same thing. This gallery is not enhancing reader understanding of the topic, and it isn't necessary to duplicate essentially identical images to give the reader an understanding (see ] for appropriate uses of galleries). Since you don't have consensus to add this gallery (and I'm unsure that copyright status is clear), could you please at a minimum reduce it to three images -- the crowd, one of Machado/Gonzalez, and one of Maduro? Misplaced Pages is not a picture book or a repository of images and is not indended to duplicate Commons. {{pb}} CoryGlee, I thought we had gotten Guyana out of the infobox; I'm not sure how it came back. ] (]) 14:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::It's gone out of control. {{pb}} {{u|Dustfreeworld}}, when you , citing PRESERVE, I'd remind you to also contemplate ] and ]. There are three images of Machado and Gonzalez with his wife that are all essentially the same thing, and two images of Maduro that are essentially demonstrating the same thing. This gallery is not enhancing reader understanding of the topic, and it isn't necessary to duplicate essentially identical images to give the reader an understanding (see ] for appropriate uses of galleries). Since you don't have consensus to add this gallery (and I'm unsure that copyright status is clear), could you please at a minimum reduce it to three images -- the crowd, one of Machado/Gonzalez, and one of Maduro? Misplaced Pages is not a picture book or a repository of images and is not indended to duplicate Commons. {{pb}} CoryGlee, I thought we had gotten Guyana out of the infobox; I'm not sure how it came back. ] (]) 14:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Venezuela, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Venezuela on Misplaced Pages. 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
This article is such a mess it's hard to know where to focus attention. Some of the background is such gibberish I am loathe to try to fix it.
The Endorsements section is never going to be cleaned up; what should be done with it? Send it to a sub-article? Reduce it to only the two main candidates? Remove anything not cited or notable? Where to start ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
If you look at US elections, we have whole articles dedicated to which celebrities have shown support for which candidates. How Hollywood do we want to cover Venezuelan elections? We already have articles for the primaries, why not send it to a sub-article and see if it ever gets improved. Kingsif (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I am out of my league on this; I tried back in May with no luck, and just want the ugly to go away :) I don't like working on messy articles, and pretty soon, I give up. If I ruled the world, we would disallow primary sources, and only mention the very notable per secondary sources. I leave the decision to others! But less is more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: I don't think that ignoring the minor candidates makes sense; they are still a notable part of the election. Personally, if someone is willing to do the work, I would propose heavily condensing the endorsements into prose text for each candidate, limiting to a small handful of the most notable endorsements in each case. E.g. a paragraph each for Maduro and Gonzalez, and 1-2 paragraphs for the others. Probably if someone want to do this, better first ping the main (pingable, i.e. non-IP) editors if it's not too difficult to trace who they are. On the other hand, as per Kingsif, allowing less detail on a VE election versus a US election would be rather biased. And other stuff exists, such as the incredibly fascinating Category:Lists of diplomatic visits by heads of state. And after all, WP:NOTPAPER. Boud (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Boud your suggestions for a rewrite is how it should happen, but I don't know anyone who might undertake that work. The content was mostly built by Ballers1919; perhaps they can be convinced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Maybe if the situation improves (!), the capacity of editors who care about presenting Venezuelan politics will. Kingsif (talk) 02:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Panamanian election in See also
Why is 1989 Panamanian general election listed in See also? The possibilities in Venezuela have little similarity to Panama, where the US had a long military presence and a geographical advantage. There have been long military analyses of how the geography of Venezuela does not permit easy intervention. So what is the connection supposed to be? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Disagree.
(edit conflict) Btw, that edit *doesn't* imply any support / oppositon of any type of intervention. Readers decide their views by themselves. So no speculation please. The reason for that edit is at WP:See also. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 03:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't directly know, as I didn't put it there, but reading the article I'm guessing it was put there as an example of a similar election where the opposition won in a landslide, causing the government to commit election fraud for their prefered candidate to win.
Taken directly from the 1989 Panamanian general election article: "An exit poll of 1,022 voters gave the opposition an overwhelming victory...The margin shocked Noriega...Suspecting that Noriega would never allow an honest vote, ADOC organized a count of results from election precincts before they were sent to district centers. As it turned out, Noriega's cronies had taken bogus tally sheets to the district centers in order to make it appear Duque had won in a landslide. On 9 May government-released results gave a clear-cut lead to Duque. By this time, however, the opposition's count was already out. It showed Endara winning in a landslide, with a nearly 3-to-1 lead over Duque. Opposition forces - as well as foreign observers and the clergy - thereupon claimed massive election irregularities."
To be frank, I don't know if this follows the Misplaced Pages policy regarding the See Also section as I am not super involved in that type of editing. However, I hope this helps! Best, Incognito melon (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Parallel vote tabulation (PVT) is an extremely significant development in independent checks on elections, and it happens that the well-designed method of the Venezuelan elections (apparently this robust election method in Venezuela only started with Chavez, but I haven't checked this claim!) is well-suited to PVT. The only way to falsify election results when there is/are one or more teams doing PVT is to not publish an official record of the results down to the polling station level.
I'm not aware of any other PVTs for this election, but if there are, we should extend the section from singular PVT to plural PVTs. Boud (talk) 12:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Discrepancy between total number of votes and total number used for percentage calculations in sources
I noticed that the table with the CNE results in #Results announced by the CNE gives a total vote count of 10,058,774. This disagrees with the source at https://www.elespectador.com/mundo/elecciones-venezuela-2024/por-que-ver-estos-decimales-nos-ayudaria-a-hablar-de-un-fraude-en-venezuela/, which gives a total of 10.058.773 (one vote less than the Wiki article). Dividing the given votes for Maduro (5,150,092) by 10,058,774, the number in the current revision of the wiki page, works out to 0,511999971, which is not the 51,20000... to (many) decimal places as reported in multiple sources. I am struggling to find the source for the number in the wiki page, 10,058,773, which might be a transcription error (?) and undermines the claim of suspicious precision in the official data.
The sum of the votes in the source I linked above work out to 10,058,774 as well, but the calculations divide each candidate's votes by 10,058,773, which makes it all very confusing. So which is it? I need other editors to help me verify the exact numbers, because they just don't add up as it is. Also note that in the excerpt "Kiko Llaneras, writing for El País, estimated the chance of the coincidence as one in 100 million.", the ref points to El Espectador (the link I posted here) and not El País.
The ALBA link (https://www.albatcp.org/en/2024/07/29/cne-announced-nicolas-maduro-moros-victory-with-51-20/) which as I understand is a pro-Maduro source, also has numbers that sum to 10.058.774 (5,150,092 + 4,445,978 + 462,704), so where did the 10,058,773 figure come from? Am I missing something here? I've done and redone these calculations and can't find an explanation for the one vote discrepancy. Is it possible that the ALBA source has since changed the total votes by 1 in order to make the percentages less suspicious? An archive.org search for the page only yields a 31 July snapshot which shows the same exact numbers as the current one--CVDX (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand either how El Espectador came to be El Pais. I'm sorry I can't help on the number discrepancy because my internet connection is so out of whack. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Dividing the given votes for Maduro (5,150,092) by 10,058,774, the number in the current revision of the wiki page, works out to 0,511999971, which is not the 51,20000... to (many) decimal places as reported in multiple sources. There is a difference between rounding to 5 decimal places (in the percentage) versus rounding to more than 5 decimal places (7 in the fraction). Not all the sources explain this quite properly. 0.511999971 is 0.5120000 when rounded to 7 decimal places (as a fraction; or rounded to 51.20000 to 5 decimal places as a percentage), because 0.71 is closer to 1.0 than to 0.0. Rounding is not truncation; truncation would give 0.5119999.The 3 in 10.058.773 in El Espectador is clearly an error in the writeup by El Espectador, since as you say, 5150092 + 4444978 + 462704 = 10058774; and the sum of three even numbers must be even, not odd (and the last digits give 2 + 8 + 4 = 14).In our current text, we don't discuss the details of the El Espectador analysis, and I don't think we have to. The fact that they made a minor error is not significant; we're allowed to do elementary arithmetic corrections.El Espectador came to be El Pais comes from Raro ver tantos ceros, ¿no? Según Kiki Llaneras, doctor en ingeniería que escribe en El País de España, ... It's El Spectador as a source that in part refers to El País. If we can find the El País source, we could add that too. There are two sentences attributed together to El Spectador in the #Results announced by the CNE section. Boud (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC) (clarify Boud (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC))
Still confused .. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT -- if we are quoting El Espectador which is quoting El Pais, we have to use El Espectador in the citation ??? Am I missing something? I couldn't load the source ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the writeup @Boud, I think I get it now. However I think we need to make this more clear as (at least to me) it's pretty confusing to understand this truncation vs. rounding problem. If a reader (like me) does the calculations themselves it would seem the numbers are wrong. Or maybe I'm just a bit dense? Oh well. CVDX (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I've changed the wording to reflect that it's El Espectador and not El País but wasn't able to find the EP source. CVDX (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
OK, I just did one minor change in the wording.For the arithmetic, it will be easier to use fewer digits, but the reasoning is the same. Let's try rounding 1.9971 to two decimal places after the decimal point.2.00 - 1.9971 = 0.00291.9971 - 1.99 = 0.00710.0029 is less than 0.0071.So 1.9971 is closer to 2.00 than to 1.99. So rounding 1.9971 to two decimal places after the decimal point gives 2.00.Hope that helps. Boud (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Glad to hear that (I must confess that I happened upon it while looking for something else, so it's not easy to find :) I'm sorry I haven't been following this portion closely; I've been barely able to keep up with the new content, and know this section is in the capable hands of Boud and you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Great that you found the El Pais ref. But it's not trivial to use - the author made a an error in estimating the probability as 1/1000 squared instead of 1/10000 squared, and for us to override that would be tricky, since probability is beyond just arithmetic. On the other hand, Terry Tao's blog post should be enough to justify overriding that error. I'm working on an update ... Boud (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
@Boud, thanks for the effort in clearing up the wording on the rounding debacle. However, I feel like the #Sequences of zeros... heading could be moved to or further paraphrased in the Results section; It is the main rationale sources use to discredit the CNE results as fraudulent, and has more to do, in my view, with results than the conduct of the electoral process itself, which is the subject of the #Conduct and irregularities section
Just out of curiosity is there a specific WP policy regarding the correction/supplantation of source data? CVDX (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I can see arguments either way: keep it in the #Conduct and irregularities versus shift it to #Results. So no objections from me either way.Just out of ...WP:NOR says that we cannot make our own changes to source information, except for WP:CALC, basic arithmetic. Minor uncontroversial corrections could be accepted, if there's no risk of them counting as WP:OR. Moreover, it says that we cannot draw conclusions from that data, except if it's just basic arithmetic. The dividing line between summarising versus adding original interpretation is sometimes fuzzy, but you can ask at the talk page there if advice is needed. But qualitative information in the encyclopedic sense differs quantitative (numerical) data. "Bloggs was a significant leader of Joe Organisation" is qualitative information that be self-falsifying; but "2+2=5" is quantitative information that is obviously wrong, even if it's stated by a reliable source.For data (in the sense of numbers), we only have examples of actual practice, not a real guideline, regarding open government data (OGD) in general, where the two well-established cases are election OGD and the COVID-19 pandemic OGD (for some countries the COVID-19 OGD is highly dubious for purely statistical reasons; see the refs at WP:ROGD). The essay WP:ROGD describes the issue, but it's nowhere near a "guideline" or "policy", and it doesn't mention the issue of correcting/supplanting source data - it's only about the difficult question of how to handle OGD when its reliability is dubious. Boud (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Article organization planning
In terms of how to structure and organize and focus this article (as it approaches 9,000 words of readable prose), where to cut and where to expand, just noting here that Maduro seems to be in for the long haul, which would mean we are eventually going to have some other sub-article.
We already have this article saying more than 1,000 are imprisoned, and with poll watchers and protesters targeted, you can see on Instagram how that is going down, and today we have:
As I said above, the election results are unlikely to determine the outcome. I'm not suggesting this new content necessarily be added here, but think we might want to start discussing where to trim or what new article(s) to start. The 2024 Venezuelan protests article is a mess, not well tended or developed, and "protests" don't encompass the full picture of what is happening. I would cut a lot of the pre-election bulky tables from here, but so far, others have disagreed with that. At 9,000 words, what ideas are there for "what next"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Boud while you have written most of the statistical vote analysis, I have focused on the actas and the process that went into gathering evidence. We now have numerous sources describing fraud, so it's a notable topic. How would you feel about a spinoff of a lot of this content to 2024 Venezuelan electoral fraud, with a summary back to here? It's a whole separate notable topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
No hurry -- just planning and trying to keep us all on the same page as to how we will handle length as it grows. Let me know when you think we're ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia, @Boud, we really need to think about this as the article gets larger and the news keep on happening. To me, the obvious candidates for splitting/summarizing are #Conduct and irregularities #Reactions, #Aftermath and sections of #Electoral process
This election has caused many more sources and Wikipedians to look into the Venezuelan electoral process; I think the #Electoral process section is already overshadowing Elections in Venezuela#Polling procedure in terms of quality -- and I also believe the lead does a far better job of summarizing the process, so I propose somehow merging them and keeping the prose in this article more focused on aspects of this particular election. CVDX (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
@Boud, CVDX, Dustfreeworld, and Newslinger: there is still so much more to write; time to think about what to split. We have several proposals above:
Something for Aftermath (how to name) that is more than protests ... there is much more to write, it's generally repression and human rights violations, but can't name it that.
CVDX wants to split off Electoral process, but I'd really like to keep all of the process stuff here, as that is needed to understand the fraud.
Split off all of the Polling ? -- that would go a long ways towards shortening the article, so that if we come up with a new Aftermath (name?) article, that will bring this article WP:SIZE within range, while keeping all the process and fraud here.
And then there's Endorsements-- just an all-round mess ...
I think splitting out polling and endorsements - basically, anything that's "in the run-up to the election" can either get its own article or be part of the primaries articles, probably. Summarise here, briefly. Aftermath might need a series of its own articles, to be fair, which could also solve the naming issue. Kingsif (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't know about 2024 democratic crisis; it implies that Venezuela was a democracy before 2024. Fraud has been the thing since Jimmy Carter skeedaddled outta there as fast as he could after the 2004 Venezuelan recall referendum; he didn't see then the same things as now, so those things became institutionalized until they were stopped by the plan to gather the actas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Even a "crisis" name is hard. 2024 Venezuelan crisis is, like, which bit. But it's not just about the presidency. Constitutional crisis suggests that democratic process might be listened to. I'd opt for more generic if unsure. Kingsif (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I think there is merit in @Kingsif's suggestion of splitting out polling, endorsements and generally things that have to do with the run-up to the election. CVDX (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
3. Yeah, I've changed my mind, the content in #Electoral process is pretty relevant to the article, and all we can do is trim it -- although it seems to have been very trimmed already. However I still think we could transclude/copyedit some of the content in this page to Elections in Venezuela#Polling procedure, which could be renamed #Electoral process. AFAIK elections have worked like this in Venezuela for a long time (need to research that though).
4 and 5. I'm open to @Kingsif's suggestion of splitting off #Endorsements and #Polling, although #Endorsements seems to me like a more likely candidate to being kept in this article, it just needs organization.
The aftermath definitely needs its own article, while the rest of the election stuff could go different ways-- I'll start a separate section for Aftermath, as we need to get that nailed down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't prefer a split of fraud or conduct; those are essential pieces of the narrative.
I think once we get the Aftermath dealt with, we won't have a WP:SIZE problem.
If we still have a size problem after splitting Aftermath, then I can see combining Conduct and Fraud allegations to one sub-article, but I hope we proceed very cautiously on whether to do that split, so as to not dilute all that happened during the run-up to and the actual election. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Okay, let's deal with Aftermath first since we have more of a consensus on that, then polling, and then we'll work on the rest. Eventually. CVDX (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Endorsements sub-article
I first raised concerns about the poor Endorsement section over three months ago; besides my cleanup, the section hasn't really improved, and isn't adding value to the reader.
I just found Operation Tun Tun, and scores of sources mention it and the crackdown. I'm going to focus a bit on which content can go there, and depending on how much fits there, that may change my mind on naming of the Aftermath article. This may take me the rest of today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I got as far as I could on this today, but with multiple distractions, wasn't able to finish as planned. Finding that we had Operation Tun Tun, and that almost all recent sources are talking about it, and I could move a lot of content there -- along with moving out the Endorsements -- cut this article now down to a place where I hope we can take a few more days to see which direction things go before deciding how to name the Aftermath article. I still have a lot to add to the Tun Tun article, but at least I can now stop chunking that content in to here, so this has become more manageable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I am between #2 and #3. Even though it is an "aftermath", no one can doubt that it's an escalation/aggravation of the long-ongoing Venezuelan crisis. CoryGlee (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I wanted to start a discussion on the results that the infobox displays. I understand that the PUD results are backed up by stronger evidence compared to the CNE results, and I do want to preface this by stating that I have no preference either way but rather that I wanted to have a discussion on the best approach.
To the best of my understanding, fraudulent (albeit officially recognized by the state) results are the ones Misplaced Pages tend to use for the infobox. For example the 1988 Mexican general election, which has the PRI candidate winning despite also recognizing "The elections were widely considered to have been fraudulent, with Salinas de Gortari and the PRI resorting to electoral tampering to remain in power." Same with the 1927 Liberian general election, described as "the most rigged ever." As well as with the 2020 Belarusian presidential election, similarly marred with fraud claims. Ornithoptera (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
We aren't obligated to add anything to any infobox; why not just leave them out entirely? This provides an apt example of times that infobox parameters aren't useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have effectively reached consensus in a later discussion (TODO after archiving: update this link), but for the record, see WP:OTHERCONTENT. We can consider other cases, but we don't need to be limited by them when they're too different. In the 1927 Liberian and 1988 Mexican cases, there was no alternative voting data (e.g. tally sheet scans) available.In the 2020 Belarusian case, we have a section 2020 Belarusian presidential election#Internet initiatives, based on about 18% of the votes collected by the opposition. There were at least this infobox debate and this official results vs citizens' collected results debate. In some sense, the BY2020 case is possibly the first where arguing that the citizens' results were more reliable than the government-agency one was to some degree justified by the sources. The current case VE2024 is much stronger for citizens' results being more reliable than govt-agency results. So it's reasonable for this case to set a precedent within Misplaced Pages - for cases where the citizens' results are considered strong enough per the WP:RS (I would say it's not literally "unprecedented", since BY2020 is something of a precedent, but the data fraction, availability and statistical analyses by independent groups are overall much weaker in that case, and at least so far, there is no ongoing debate by article editors to put the opposition data in the infobox.) Boud (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Map for González recognition?
Hi everyone! I hope you are doing great. You know, I was wondering whether it is appropriate to add a map with the colored countries that recognize González (it happened with Guaidó) -- They are, for now, Peru, the US and Argentina. Any thought? Thank you! CoryGlee (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
See International reactions to the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election, where that work is housed. I'm fairly certain that everyone working here is too busy trying to keep up with the content to replicate information that some reliable sources are already gathering. I've already seen an image of that info somewhere, although I can't recall where-- maybe check the Spanish Misplaced Pages ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
That is, although the map is "declared him as winner of the election", it seems to be misinterpreted as "recognized him as president-elect of Venezuela", and there's a subtle but importance difference there. And it's dated (eg Argentina should be blue). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia hi and thank you for following my question; yes, as you say, it's not updated nor is it correct. I think that we will be able to have a much better (accurate) map this coming week, with the pronunciation, formal pronunciation of many, including Argentina. Have a great Sunday. --CoryGlee (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Thx, CoryGlee; just to be sure we're on the same page ...
I don't know what File:Edmundo González recognition map.svg is supposed to be showing different from that (in diplomatic terms, the US has not recognized him as president-elect as Peru and Argentina have), and
We may need a third map of those who have specifically recognized him as president-elect. But then, Peru and Argentina don't make for much of a map!
SandyGeorgia hi again, I think that we may face strong opposition with three maps. I am against the current map because it generalizes too many positions. Argentina's position is incomparable to Brazil's far softer. That self map should be reorganized and show more colors (it's possible), and distinguish stronger from softer positions. As for recognition map (the one which shows the Americas), we should be careful... The map on Guaidó recognition kept changing overtime and it created chaotic confusion. --CoryGlee (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Yep ... that's (partly) why I'm not a fan of expending our (limited) resources on this kind of work-- it's a timesink and distraction from writing the article, and somewhere out there on the internet, some news org has already done the map anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
PS, some amount of the content (originally written here) was sourced to La Patilla, which had a fairly contentious RFC (see WP:RSP). And a good bit of it is generalized information that can be used in other articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Newslinger ... Ah, I see ... it's not the text you wanted expanded or brought back, but you say there are actually polls missing ?? Please re-add then your tag whereever it's needed (I have no intention of trying to clean up those messy tables myself :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I will try to work on that as I find time, but we are seriously strapped in this whole mess by having lost Venezuelan editors after the arb case ... I can't get to everything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I can't find a link (either here on es.wiki); I think we'll have to resort to wiktionary or a dictionary definition:
We haven't at all yet explained all the ways the CNE, TSJ etc are violating Venezuelan law regarding official notices that should be released by whom and by what time, etc, but I can't do that without the help of the missing Venezuelan editors, who better know their way around es.wikipedia. Somewhere on the Spanish Misplaced Pages the content probably exists. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I was wondering about that. Apparently the CNE was required to release the full results down to polling station/mesa level within 48 hours, so it's violated that law (at least). Boud (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
At least, and more, but I just can't keep up with all the content that needs to be added. And I have a very busy week ahead. And it's hard to know how to prioritize all the (still) missing content, as the repression and human rights violations are spiraling so fast; I have bookmarked now a couple dozen of sources I need to add. The bigger news coming out now is generally related to the repression and the bigger geopolitical alliances driving the Maduro position; the election results and the CNE/TSJ issue is kinda moot since the military is in charge anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
For those who have time to catch up on the bigger geopolitical picture, The New York Times article listed in Further reading scratches the surface (power is shared by Maduro, Diosdado Cabello and Vladimir Padrino Lopez), so conflicting messages are often sent in any conflict; this article is more indepth and may be helpful for those with a long-term interest in the topic (protests and vote tallies are not going to be determining factors):
The use of Cite Q, WikiData is resulting in WP:CITEVAR issues (and outright errors) and making it hard to clean up citations. Some of the Cite Q sources have article titles italicized when they shouldn't be and most are lacking access-dates. Many use a variant style on author names. Many have no trans-title and overriding them here is difficult when the title isn't even given in the citation. And missing publishers. Not impressed by Cite Q and the work it's causing. I don't know how to override the faulty italicized titles, other than simply rewriting those citations entirely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
{{cite Q}} is the only long-term viable way to reduce the amount of work duplication for different language Wikipedias and other Wikimedia wikis - and as well between different en.Misplaced Pages pages. If someone corrects a non-cite-Q citation on one Misplaced Pages page, then there's no automatic fix on other Misplaced Pages pages that use the same reference. So that person's correction is to some degree wasted - it does not automatically propagate to the other Misplaced Pages articles where it should also be corrected.{{cite Q}} currently exists in the Wikipedias for 63 different languages. If I create or fix a Wikidata element for a reference for use in one of the Wikipedias, I see no point in requiring people in 62 other languages to have to retype all the bibliographic information, with all the parameters. You can rewrite some of the cite Q citations here if you really want to, but Misplaced Pages is fundamentally multi-lingual, so rewriting is only a short term hack.You can add a comment at Template talk:Cite Q#Reminder for title-trans to remind other people that we hope that someone will implement title-trans, or you can find out how to do the fix and propose it in the appropriate module. We're all volunteers. Boud (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Do you know how to repair the articles titles that are in (faulty) italics ? Book titles are italicized, news articles are not (MOS:ITALICS, MOS:NOITALIC). I fiddled around at WikiData and found nothing, so I'm leaning towards rewriting the remaining faulty citations. Trans-title I can just add locally, but I haven't figured out how to override the coding or data input errors like faulty italics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not too familiar with that cite style (especially since it's not as easy to edit as wikicode, which is basically WYSIWYG), but I'll work on learning how to use it. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Boud Yep, those are some of the issues, and after many years of enforcing 2c as FAC Coordinator, they stand out like a sore thumb to me (and the missing publisher on another one is more serious -- we have to identify publishers at min!). Cite Q will cause inconsistent citations wherever it is used; standardization is a nice idea, but it's not how Misplaced Pages works (WP:CITEVAR) and WikiData can't just impose a citation style across the board. The only way to fix this here, I guess, is to rewrite the citations. Not gonna worry about it for now, but it's like fingernails on a chalkboard to me and I find they make working here much harder, because they invalidate ctrl-f when you're trying to find if a source has been used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia I didn't check if it was you who converted "WaPo_Marudo_lost_election" to a non-Wikidata reference, but please try to remember to preserve the |archive-url, |archive-date parameters if you do these conversions - these were missing. The world wide web is volatile, and long-term archiving is crucial; archives also help for some people who get paywall blocks (these are browser-dependent) or for sources that block some geographical locations (many local US newspapers block all EU IPs rather than handle the GDPR; irrelevant for this article, but relevant for some others). Boud (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Boud ... So sorry about missing that piece. Yes, it was me because we were adding the content almost at the same time, so after I realized we had a duplicate, I tried to reconcile the two, but apparently failed to capture everything. I know the utility of archive-url, but again, the problem with Cite Q is the parameters aren't visible in edit mode, so it's easy to miss pieces; to reconcile the refs, one has to have two windows open, and then hope you get it all; with my editing limitations, that's a lot of cut-and-paste from an ipad! Do you know if there is a way we can just use the id= parameter on a cite template to add the WikiData code? That would give us the best of both worlds. I understand that problems of the nature seen here have persisted since the template was created and kept without consensus. Using it leaves WP:CITEVAR breaches that would prevent an article from reaching Featured article status until all were repaired, and as mentioned in previous discussions, can lead to more serious issues. Also, I keep ref names short and sweet; the quotes are only required on ref names if there are spaces, so I avoid spaces and underscores and quote marks to keep ref names shorter and easier to work with. Sorry again for missing the archive url. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia In a different order to your points, firstly I have to say the same thing as the others: "Wow!" sorry to hear about your accident. :(The May 2024 cite Q case where a book is apparently also published in a journal - since this doesn't have the element ID listed, it's hard to check the problem without searching.Quotes on ref names: Quotation marks are preferred but optional if the only characters used are, so the quotes are optional but preferred. (My guesses for the reasons: it's more standard for parsers; it discourages people who put spaces into labels from writing them without quotes.)Editing techniques: I always edit with multiple tabs and do not purely use the keyboard; I do in practice use the mouse as well, even though in principle pure-keyboard techniques are faster. So I empathise with it being more difficult to edit without having multiple windows or tabs. I've done a very few edits with my PinePhone and the only external device being a keyboard plugged in over the docking bar (though in "convergence" mode, with a keyboard + mouse + external monitor, editing on my phone is fine - the phone is just a GNU/Linux computer plus a mobile modem running a small GNU/Linux system). Anyway, I'm not trying to imply blame - as long as there's no edit war, different editors can complement each other (and not just compliment each other).Finally, getting to the most practical question, {{citation}} says id id A unique identifier used where none of the specialized ones are applicable Line optional, so I guess it's an option open to editing consensus for a particular article whether it's acceptable to put a Wikidata ID in |id=. I've had a go on my user page sandbox-subsection and the template/module doesn't seem to issue any complaints, either in the format |id=Q128550264 or |id=Wikidata:Q128550264. Even if some people consider it bad style, it can serve as a temporary label so that an editor converting from cite Q to en.Misplaced Pages citation can leave the Wikidata ID there for others to check and recover significant parameters from. I don't really see why anyone could object: if it's a fact that a source has a Wikidata entry, then that's a form of useful metadata about that source. Boud (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for all that Boud; I have to go out now so will look at your sandbox when home. I just hope you realize that my editing limitations cause unintended errors, and I really didn't notice I had left out the archive url. Will catch up later .. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Absent other credibility data, the Mass Behavior Research and Hinterlaces polls should be removed from this page, per the C-Informa/Medianálisis evaluation. — Newslingertalk21:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
This part is unsurprising; the policies and guidelines on es.wikipedia are considerably different (looser) than those of en.wikipedia, and I frequently find undesirable sources in content translated from there. I agree with removing both of them, Hinterlaces has long been known to be unreliable and is associated with chavismo, but because it has been the chavista go-to pollster for many years, you may get pushback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Newslinger I forgot to mention that most of the non-reliable poll information was added by one now sock-blocked editor, and the sockmaster worked on elections for countries like Pakistan and others; possible COI or paid editing conforms with what the sources say about the intent of these polls to manipulate. Add that Misplaced Pages was censured in Venezuela beginning 27 July (after I first wrote about and deleted most of the non-RS polls a month earlier, 27 June, and other biased editing was addressed), a picture begins to emerge. Maybe the Signpost will look into censorship in Venezuela. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
That's useful meta-information for people like me who are more or less new to editing on the topic, thanks (some things - RfCs and so on - were pointed out to me on this talk page over the past week)! Boud (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the context. After reviewing Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics, I now have a better understanding of the editing history of this topic area. WikiBlame is a useful tool that searches the revision history to identify the editor who added or removed any piece of text to/from any page on Misplaced Pages, and can be used to determine the origin of questionable edits. — Newslingertalk03:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Newslinger: Not always; I am constantly having to harp about WP:CWW, as content is frequently moved between articles without attribution, and one editor in the arbcase edited in such a way that almost every article they touched broke Who Wrote That?SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I didn't know about the Who Wrote That? extension. That's a very nice tool and I'll be using it to research content additions. Thanks. — Newslingertalk03:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Have you seen Polls in Venezuela#2024 presidential election? I worked on summarizing the pollster analysis from Efecto Cocuyo and it was moved there. The text may be of use to you; it's focused on the 2024 election, but many of the sources have info on the background of polling firms. CVDX (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Mass Behavior Research
Mass Behavior Research was launched fairly recently, with its first web publication dated 3 September 2023. The C-Informa fact-checking coalition assigned Mass Behavior Research a credibility score of 5.15 out of 10 (with 0 being least credible and 10 being most credible). C-Informa notes that Mass Behavior Research surveys have minimal coverage in news and social media. Mass Behavior Research lacks a website and a media spokesperson, publishes insufficient data, and has errors in its methodology. Based on this information, Mass Behavior Research polls should be removed from this page. — Newslingertalk21:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Hinterlaces
Hinterlaces is an older firm, with its first web publication dated 6 August 2004. However, C-Informa assigned Hinterlaces a credibility score of 4.69 out of 10, which is even lower than that of Mass Behavior Research. Hinterlaces does not provide technical or sampling data for its polls, which brings the provenance of its data into question. Based on this information, Hinterlaces polls should be removed from this page. — Newslingertalk21:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
PS, this could be another Cite Q issue; if one searches the article for the source, one does not fine it, since the Cite Q obscures it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
@Wilfredor and SandyGeorgia: I'll merge/resplit Claims of fraud with that, since they overlap. I would say the problem was that the Claims of fraud section is right now in Reactions, since I thought that Conduct and irregularities was limited to pre-28 July. However, it's clear that there's rough consensus for including 28-July+post-28-July events in Conduct and irregularities, so I'll merge the section into there. Boud (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Done Feel free to check. It's a bit risky having the no-citation sentence on what Twitter users think (BTW, the title consensus appears to be stick to Twitter, so it's a rather arbitrary question of style whether to write "X" or "Twitter"; we should probably see if there's an RfC or MOS guideline for that; personally, the ambiguity of X is a huge problem - I still use X on my desktop, and Wayland (protocol) only on my phone, though sooner or later I'll have to switch to Wayland). Since that particular subsection title does not say fraud, we could safely remove the sentence. The topic is sequences of zeros, and that's a fact no matter what the interpretation is.Any objections to removing the uncited Twitter sentence? Boud (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Boud, I haven't looked at the merge yet, but I don't think we need the uncited sentence .. which reminds me ... re, your thanks in a section above, Wilfredor is an experienced Venezuelan editor, but most of them are now working over at es.wikipedia, and there is just too much to keep up with everywhere (duplication will happen), so thanks to YOU, Newslinger and others as it is so nice to have fresh blood and new eyes on this topic, post-arbcase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm really just hoping that Maduro will fly off to exile in Istanbul so that I can stop editing on the topic and let others handle it ... :P Thanks for the compliment. :) Boud (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
That's not gonna happen, and the opposition always knew that (I still have so many sources to add). Prisons are being rehabbed to handle thousands of arrests, and Maduro has stated he intends to imprison every last witness of the actas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Now I'm just reading your messages, for some reason I'm not getting notifications, I'll check. Feel free to revert or edit what I add without any problem, I tried to read to avoid duplication but I missed it, sorry. Wilfredor (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Re ===Sequences of zeros in the CNE values===, what would you think about "Decimal precision in the CNE values"?
There is other duplication in the "Results announced by the National Electoral Council (CNE)" section.
I think ===Other claims of fraud=== is actually material that belongs better back in the Reactions section, maybe with a different heading.
I like the write up, but then, my postgrad is such that I'm comfortable with the statistical analysis and terminology; I hope others are, as it doesn't strike me as too jargony.
SandyGeorgia 1. The problem with "decimal precision" in the section title is that it doesn't point to the actual problem. There's nothing statistically unusual about writing something to high precision - with a vote count supposedly accurate to 1 in a few million, the percentage could reasonably be written to about 5 decimal places of precision if this were the abstract of a scientific paper, if there were a particular interest in obtaining highly accurate results. The coincidence is only the fact that there are sequences of four zeros.2. yes, I know there's some duplication that needs cleaning up ...3. If you want to switch the other claims of fraud back to the Reactions section, fine by me, go ahead.4. There might be some ways to write things in a more popular way, but it still has to be technically correct, especially since I'm sure that Terry Tao doesn't want to take a legal risk: between studying the bayesian probability of a hypothesis of fraud and asserting fraud, there's a big legal difference (says me who is not a lawyer). Boud (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
introduced the minor claim that all other candidates recognized Maduro's victory, which I cannot see stated in either the NYT or BBC sources that follow the claim
you removed the general consensus of the WP:RS that the CNE's results are falsified (since there essentially are no results from the CNE, just a tiny handful of numbers that appear to be arbitrarily chosen given the unusual 0000s in the percentages)
you removed the reference to the Carter Center, which historically has generally supported the CNE's versions of Venezuelan poll results
you removed the mention of several independent media that analysed the results, including that of The Washington Post, which got 67%/30% for Gonzalez/Maduro based on 97% of the publicly known (online) tally sheets (which themselves constitute about 81% of the set of tally sheets) and checked the online scans against hundreds of the physical tally sheets
you removed the current TOC limit.
This is why I reverted your edit.
While the content of the WP:LEAD is certainly open to changes, if you make any changes that are likely to be controversial, it would be best to propose the changes here. Please scroll up through this talk page, and look through the talk page archives, to see previous discussions. I suggest that you propose changes or explain concerns in this talk page section. Boud (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
The "all other candidates" statement is particularly problematic, considering the history of how the elections came to have a ballot where Maduro was featured 13 times and opposition parties were intervened to include pro-Maduro candidates. If the other problems mentioned by Boud were corrected, there were some improvements in HandIsNotNookis's rewrite; the flow was good, and some of those might be re-incorporated after discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Results announced by PUD
I don't know what the state results and graphic are based on, but they are inconsistent with the national results. Also, numbers in Barinas, Guarico, Lara, Miranda, Portuguesa, and Zulia do not add up. I suggest we change the state numbers to the ones on the website shown as the source. Philosopher Spock (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
@Philosopher Spock: I fixed the table. Please check if you see any remaining errors. If the opposition publish version 2, then this script should be usable to do the update by just changing the file name (as long as columns don't change) and copy/pasting.It seems that someone who edited the PUD data here has numbers of "invalid" votes separate to the number of "null" votes, but Results of the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election: PUD version 1 (Q128342566) only has a column "VOTOS_NULOS". I think that these are often counted separately in elections: a blank vote is one with nothing written by the voter; an invalid vote is one with a cross written in the wrong place or rude words written by hand by the voter. In any case, I only see the "VOTOS_NULOS" column.For the vertical bar graph, I've started a discussion at Commons, where you can follow up. Boud (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I think the totals are supposed to include the blank votes, though it doesn't matter much. Also, the opposition just published version 2. Philosopher Spock (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately Results of the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election: PUD version 2 (Q128634804) does not have the RE (registered voters column), so for the 541 extra tally sheets (I'm assuming none were removed), we don't have the registered voter counts. Version 1 line 1 of the csv file is ...,CENTRO,MESA,RE,VOTOS_VALIDOS,... while Version 2 line 1 is ...,CENTRO,MESA,VOTOS_VALIDOS,... (this is not a typo; the data lines also have 21 columns in V2 versus 22 columns in V1). I've updated the main table, because that's what more people will be interested in, but for the states table, we would have to remove the participation % column. What's better: keep v1 for the states table with the participation column? versus update to v2 for the states table with the participation column removed? Boud (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I updated the states table to v2, except that the participation column is still for v1. There's a in the table header and a note in the sourcing line that states this. Boud (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I took a quick glance at scholar.google and found a number of conferences, working papers, UMich website, etc ... more checking to be done because WP:SPS calls for "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Notability isn't established at Walter Mebane; the main "independent" source is a press release. Out of time, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree that although the concerning edit only added one adjective, strong, and added a source by a well-established electoral forensics statistics researcher, the new text risked giving the impression of switching from a news media level of verification to an academic level, especially since evidence can be interpreted to have a specific quantified meaning in the sense of model evidence. So the revert was correct.At a very quick browse, the two paragraphs on the Mebane paper look fine.As for Walter Mebane being notable, it's true that technically the article doesn't have media entries establishing notability, but he does appear to have a professorship; the fact that his article does not have the cv-like appearance of Misplaced Pages entries for many academics is circumstantial evidence that it's not an attempt at self-promotion (which is good, though it doesn't establish notability). I don't understand this is not promising regarding the Reuters article. He's quoted there as an expert. He's one of the two authors of a 2017 election forensics guide published by USAID; he's mentioned on this secondary academic type source; two of his publications are listed by electionlab.mit; he's mentioned by Smithsonian Magazine; there's also a mention in The Elephant, which seems to be a Kenyan news source that is itself not (yet) WP-notable. Anyway, I'll have a look through Mebane's working paper and see if the two paragraphs need some wording changes. The expression "probability of no fraud" almost certainly needs to be put in a proper context, where "no fraud" is properly defined. Boud (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Boud, I meant by "not promising" that his methodology may not be sound or well recognized -- but I have been in a hurry and didn't scrutinize closely -- leave it up to you. I'm not yet convinced we should include it (he's not Terrence Tao), as we are opening the door to all primary sources that follow (and there will be more). Also, I'm accustomed to viewing primary sources through the lens of WP:MEDRS, which you may decide doesn't apply here -- regardless, we may need to establish some criteria for inclusion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
You probably scanned too fast: Mebane's methods are fine; he's critical of 1BL, not 2BL. Mebane is well-established as an election forensics expert, Tao is not. Mebane's analysis is done with the benefit of decades of experience of studying elections and the empirical real-world data on how elections happen down to very concrete details. Tao does not have this experience (not as far as I know): his analysis just uses statistics plus some common sense.I agree that the field of election forensics is much too little developed to apply the equivalent of WP:MEDRS blindly. However, it happens that the AltaVista PVT - of which Mebane is one of the four authors - is a case with a preregistered method, which is a step towards the direction of clinical medicine. Anyway, I need a moment to read through Mebane's paper ... Boud (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Famous is not the same as notable; yes, it is likely that most of the 600 meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for notability. There are multiple problems with that addition. WP:UNDUE based on a primary source. And most of those 600 aren't "observers" in the real sense of the word. Did you read the secondary sources I linked to above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't believe vote tallies or maps belong anywhere in the lead. Both sides claim to win – one claims a narrow win, the other claims a landslide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
IMO the edit war started by inexperienced user removing content without valid reason has stopped after I told them about WP:PRESERVE. I don’t know why you join the edit war if you think discussion is needed. Anyway.
Currently the lead says:
“Academics, news outlets and the opposition provided "strong evidence" according to The Guardian to suggest that González won the election by a wide margin, with the opposition releasing copies of official tally sheets collected by poll watchers from a majority of polling centers showing a landslide victory for González. The government-controlled National Electoral Council (CNE) announced falsified results claiming a narrow Maduro victory on 29 July. The CNE's results were rejected by the Carter Center. Analyses by media sources including the Associated Press, the Washington Post, El Espectador, and Infobae found the results lacking credibility or statistically improbable.”
What’s the problem to have image in the lead that illustrate the text, and showing the “strong evidence”? If CNE never has similar map, does that mean we should never include the map of PUD, which we described as “strong evidence” by RS?
Even if the CNE results map is available in the future, I’m still not sure if we should have that included, as our lead is now describing it as “falsified” results. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Putting results tables, data or maps from an unofficial source, while leaving out an official source, in the infobox or in an image in the lead is always going to be unusual and generate controversy and naturally lead to edit wars; discussing and gaining consensus saves everyone time and avoids agida. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for effectively reminding people of WP:ROGD: it's still rough consensus for many articles that unreliable OGD has to be treated with an almost equivalent status to reliable OGD, though in reality, it's really under-discussed and is a TODO issue for the en.Misplaced Pages community. Anyway, for this article, we have a close to unprecedented case, so we are open to seeking consensus for this particular article. Moreover, WP:OTHERCONTENT means we can consider this article on its own merits (the merits of its sources). Whether that leads to similar editing consensus on other articles in similar situations will be seen later. Boud (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I don’t know of anything that’s “always going to be unusual and generate controversy and naturally lead to edit wars”, maybe that should be written to WP:BOLD. That’s your opinion anyway. Discussing and gaining consensus are good, though I don’t think they need to go along with edit war. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
DFW, we had an arbcase, and Venezuelan politics was nearly made a WP:CTOP; could we just proceed with enough caution that we will be left with time to actually build content rather than dealing with edits that are likely to generate controversy? As I'm trying to build content, I'm seeing unnecessary maintenance tags go on the article; I can certainly go work elsewhere if that is to be the environment here. And per WP:BRD, as soon as moving that map to the lead was disputed, it shoulda gone to talk then. Please remember we're all busy volunteers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
“Unnecessary maintenance tags” are your opinion. Have you counted how many edits of mine that you have reverted? What I’m seeing is “unnecessary reverts”. I’m not going into detail with WP:BRD here, as we’re all busy volunteers. Leave it to those who are fond of policies.
If we were “proceeding with enough caution”, I don’t think the US position from Miami Herald yesterday should be added now per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. It’s fine that we disagree, but just don’t say that I’m not proceeding with enough caution while you are when it’s not the case. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Um, so I guess this is personal? All right. I believe that clarifying the US position is relevant-- particularly when the Miami Herald is quoting two State Department spokespersons. It's not CRYSTAL; it's a spokesperson speaking to them. Have you been able to access that article ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the suggestion to move map of PUD to the section Results announced by the PUD from the lead. If there are no results in the lead by CNE there shouldn't be of PUD either. PUD is not relevant authority to announce the winner, so their results should be in their own section as part of WP:PRESERVEBottle for Bread (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
How about using {{switcher}} as on the Spanish-language version of this page to shift the maps to the lead? The reader would easily switch back and forth between the PUD and PNE versions. We could make the "all" option the default one to be as NPOV as possible, presenting both the evidence-free POV and the evidence-based POV together. Any objections? Boud (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
es.wikipedia doesn't have the same policies and guidelines as en.wikipedia and that infobox is dreadful ... it relies on hidden parameters, and our MOS tells us not to do that. Yes, I would oppose, as I don't agree with chunking up the infobox at all ... let readers actually read the article (novel idea, I know ... :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
PS, if we had a side-by-side map, with both CNE and PUD, we could use {{multiple image}} and then I wouldn't necessarily object to having them in the lead ... but since a map for CNE results isn't possible because they haven't provided that data, we can't get there from here. Maybe one side-by-side table of overall results would work, but I don't see what that adds; the content is in the lead, the results are disputed, and the outcome is not going to be based on vote tallies anyway (it never was). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I like the idea of the switcher template, maybe not in infobox, but just below it? And IMO the caption of the CNE results may contain the word “falsified” with citation. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I thought we were talking about the lead, not the infobox; the edit-warred map was not in the infobox -- it was below it. If it's just within content, maps don't have to be too small, because the multiple image template has a size setting. But Boud's point is that there is no CNE map to display anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Just to clarify: my point is that showing File:Venezuela_Estados.svg as the CNE map is fully justified by all our sources. Whatever differences in policy and practice there are between es-wikipedia and en-wikipedia, their idea of using File:Venezuela_Estados.svg as the CNE map through {{switcher}} seems informative and justified by the sources. This is a situation where the lack of information is effectively a notable piece of information. I'm not fussy about if it should be in the infobox or below; having these maps somewhere in the lead with switcher would seem reasonable to me. We do have a CNE map to display - it just happens to show all states in grey. Boud (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I leave it to you; as I've said too many times, I don't think that vote tallies are the main story here (they were always going to be ignored, always have been, nothing new except this time there is enough proof that the rest of the world finally tuned in), so I'm trying to focus on building other content. The purpose of this thread was to remind to use talk rather than edit warring, and that if we add one to the lead, we have to add the other. I don't care what is decided as long it's based on consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Confused; I hate ultra-long infoboxes, as they interfere with content, and was envisioning them as images below the infobox. We can move the Venezuelan politics sidebar elsewhere (eg Background). Because this election is so unique, I'd like to not expand the infobox or encourage filling of infobox parameters, so prefer a standalone image. Is that doable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
OK, how about this version? It uses the generic {{infobox}} template, but it's independent of the election infobox, so in terms of html, it's not constrained to stick to the election infobox. It's standalone. Boud (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Except why are we showing Guyana disputed territory on the map? It's territory controlled by Guyana and doesn't vote in Venezuela, and it's weird that we show it on the PUD map, but not the Maduro map, when Maduro is the one promoting the Guyana dispute (to distract from the Venezuela crisis). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Also, rather than use the generic infobox, why not just use {{Multiple image}} and place them vertical with a footer? One problem with infoboxes is that, once you add them, people start filling the parameters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
@Boud @Dustfreeworld @SandyGeorgia I like the idea of moving results to the lead now that the dust has settled, but why is this limited to the image? As there is no regional breakdown for the CNE results (giving the impression that there are no results), I think the current setup doesn't do the situation justice, as per WP:ROGD and WP:CTOP.
If we are going to show the unofficial PUD results in the lead we should show the CNE result as well, but there's nothing in the infobox. I'm in favor of somehow including both in the lead. Is the current setup because of a technical limitation with infoboxes?
I feel like as it stands now, the presentation isn't sufficiently WP:NPOV. Even if all the info regarding the controversy is in the text, at a glance it's not as obvious from a skim/infobox perspective. I think it would only work with a corresponding double results infobox of some sort.
@CVDX: It looks like {{switcher}} can be used inside of {{infobox election}}! Have a look at my sandbox oldid 1239358710. I just did that rapidly as a proof-of-concept with the percentages: this is quite easy to do in terms of syntax; I put an extra space at the beginning of each line to make the nesting of curly brackets clearer, though that's not obligatory. @SandyGeorgia and Dustfreeworld: Any objections to using {{switcher}} in this way for the vote counts and percentages in the infobox (i.e. infobox election)? Repeat refs can be inserted there too. Putting the PUD data first and CNE second is justified by the overwhelming majority of the reliable sources. Readers would still have easy access to the CNE numbers, just slightly less prominently than the PUD ones. If there are no objections, anyone can easily do that edit without needing much tech skill. You can do this in a single line, e.g. |percentage1 = {{switcher|30%|per the PUD|51.2%|per the CNE}} if you're worried about mixing up nested curly brackets. Boud (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I didn't know that was possible, but it would be ideal in my opinion. Show the PUD results first as most sources give more credit to them, keep the CNE results easily accessible under a radio button. The example in your sandbox looks great, but the "see all" option doesn't make much sense in this context, any way to remove it?
Let's see if we can find the consensus required to make this change.
Would it be possible to make the percentage changes contingent on the map change and vice versa? As in, make it so readers can choose to see the complete picture of one side's results or the other, instead of separate radio buttons for maps and percentages? CVDX (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
The "show all" button seems reasonable to me: some readers may want to look at both numbers simultaneously. As for removing it, it seems to be coded in the .css class "switcher-container", so individuals could avoid the "show all" button by creating a personal .css file. In other words, it's not easy to do for default readers.I don't think that linking the switch between the {{infobox election}} and the {{infobox}} would be easy. In principle, we could have {{switcher}} at the outer level, and inside of it, put firstly the full {{infobox election}} (the actual infobox) and {{infobox}} (maps) for PUD; and secondly, another copy of the full {{infobox election}} (actual infobox) and {{infobox}} (maps) for CNE. But in that case, any undisputed parameters edited in one copy might be updated in one copy and not the other. Even worse, the "show all" button would give four boxes altogether (infobox, maps, infobox, maps). Technically, anything is possible, but some solutions are more sustainable and verifiable and convenient than others. What we do on this page might motivate people to think up new scripts to match this sort of situation. Boud (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
JNOJ1423 did some edits without discussing them here on the talk page, but to me they look consistent with rough consensus with the discussion here. I don't think a revert would be justified. Probably just a bit of reduction in the number of repeat links is needed, without going to the other extreme of underlinking, where the reader has to scan the whole article to find a clickable link. Boud (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Lost sources
While I was having computer problems last week, all the sources I had saved on Apple News went missing in my Saved Stories, so I'm going to have to scroll back days to recover; apologies for gaps in content I've been adding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Charges and arrests of politicians
CVDX, would you mind if we trimmed and moved the Poder360-cited text to Superlano's article? I recall that you wanted that content because of the video, but videos of that and of the related issues are all over the internet, that sentence doesn't enhance the article, and that section has now been tagged as "too long" just as I'm trying to catch up and finish telling the rest of the story to establish the relevance of these arrests. I'd like to be able to trim that which is redundant or not part of which way these arrests are headed, but I remember you felt that sentence was important, so am hesitant to cut it without discussion. And somewhere I lost a source that says they intended to throw every single poll watching witness in prison, so still working on that whole thing, along with charges against Machado and Gonzales. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia No problem, I believe you're much more capable than me in making these judgments given your huge participation in this article. Moving it to Freddy Superlano will work just fine.
I'm also concerned about the length (currently 10394 words!), and am thinking of WP:SPLIT possibilities which I'll post here for everyone to sketch out together. CVDX (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
CVDX see discussions already at #Article organization planning; I wish we could keep as much of the actual election as possible intact, while figuring out a name for an Aftermath article ... I hate to lose everything in one place about the leadup to the fraud, particularly since the fraud tactics haven't ended yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Also, remember, we can still sort-of have everything in one place, it'll just be a summary, with less detail. Careful editing can hopefully make the article just as comprehensive as it is now. CVDX (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Dustfreeworld, re this edit summary ("I added the tag because I think this subsection is too long when comparing to other subsections, and this may have chilling effects in RL. People may be frightened by all these. I understand that the arrests should be documented. Just that I don’t think it’s the main focus for now …") it is faster to use the talk page for discussions.
I'm not sure what "people may be frightened", but I (unfortunately) can assure you that this is not the first rodeo in Venezuela, and there is not anything in that section that is not well known to all Venezuelans who have lived under chavismo. Our duty is to report what reliable sources say, not hold hands, and there are hundreds of sources right now about the detentions of politicians, journalists, voting center witnesses, and random juveniles who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time -- precisely because the (usual) plan is to frighten. We serve no one by not reporting what scores and scores of reliable sources are documenting. This is well documented by every human rights org, and well known to Venezuelans and I could get to the relevance faster now that my internet is working again if I can focus on adding content for a bit. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Um, of course I know that our duty is to report what RS say, but now we have that one or two subsections much long than the Protests subsection and making things unbalanced. That’s why the tags were added. (Actually the Protests section only becomes that short after I’ve rearranged some content, anyway I hope someone can expand it, perhaps by adding content from the sub-article). --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
To clarify, I’m not saying we shouldn’t expand the part about arrests. I just mean maybe it can have its own article, so that it can be reduced to a summary in Aftermath. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
That's because we have a Protests sub-article, but not other sub-articles yet ... and as the content evolves, we will be better able to determine what the other sub-articles might be. It's not clear to me yet ... what troubles me about those tags is they encourage people to add content here instead of at the relevant sub-article, when there is one. Protests are fully developed elsewhere; the rest of the story is still developing. To keep this article within WP:SIZE limits, we don't need to add content here that is housed elsewhere already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Re “what troubles me about those tags is they encourage people to add content here instead of at the relevant sub-article, when there is one.”
Experienced user will notice that there’s a relevant sub-article (as seen from hatnote) and will add content from there to here to expand the section IMO. Even if people really do “add content here instead of at the relevant sub-article”, it won’t be too difficult for us to move/cut/copy the content to right place.
Re “Protests are fully developed elsewhere; the rest of the story is still developing. To keep this article within WP:SIZE limits, we don't need to add content here that is housed elsewhere already.”
I don’t think size limits are more important than WP:BALANCE. It’s housed elsewhere doesn’t mean it should have minimal weight here. If size is an issue, other parts / subsections of this article should be trimmed IMO.
Anyway, now I do agree that the section on charges and arrests can carry more weight, though I don’t think Crackdown should carry too much weight (for now), and I still think Protests should be expanded (and with less focus on the number of death). Perhaps I’ll do that (by copying from sub-article) when I have time.
BTW, Machado’s opinion on power sharing seems a bit too early to be included now … and who knows, people are allowed to change their mind; maybe Elon Musk will call Maduro, González and Machdo for lunch next week? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you would use the talk page more often. I agree that the power sharing issue should not have been added, as it's a non-starter based on an oped. But it was dumped in to Further reading, so was bound to be added; could we stop using Further reading for things that don't really fit in this article, or that are dated? Now that it is here, it might as well stay, at least until we figure out what the Aftermath artile will be. We have a sub-article for 2024 Venezuelan protests; I oppose any expansion of that content here, as this article is already too long, that article is pretty much WP:PROSELINE (except for what I already cut from here to there), and the protests are essentially over-- stopped by Operation Tun Tun. Since I found the Tun Tun article, we now have a place for crackdown info; this article needs to be a summary because of length issues. As to balance, all of the Aftermath will eventually have its own article, so we can't judge balance by this article. And it's even harder to gauge balance in a rapidly evolving event: almost everything I've read in the last two days (but not yet had time to add) is about Operation Tun Tun, which until this morning, did not even mention 2024-- I am expanding over there, then we can judge balance in the Aftermath and deal with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
It would be helpful if we would stop discussing my editing style (and I won’t comment on yours. FYI, around 22% of my contributions are on talk pages, which is over one thousand). --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
“it was dumped in to Further reading, so was bound to be added”
I don’t understand. It can just stay in the Further reading section, why must it be added?
That aftermath section was *already unbalanced* two days ago; and that *will* affect whether the protests are over or not. I can’t agree with that part of your comment.
Again, length shouldn’t be the main issue here. And I agree with your suggestion of splitting the Endorsement part (and that’s basically what I want when I tagged it). --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Endorsements section again
Dustfreeworld re this tag, I'm not sure what you are proposing. The section has been cleaned out as much possible to remove the non-notables, and everyone left there has to be included best I can tell. So what do you suggest is too long? Or to where do you suggest this content can be moved? As far as I know, we don't have a sub-article where it fits, endorsements are usually part of election articles and nothing comes to (my) mind as to how to deal with the whole mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
The Smartmatic content seems excessively detailed in an already long article. Is everyone here aware that they have sued Wikipedians and that care should be taken? Can someone trim this content to three or four sentences?
I'm not sure where to start on all of this after a long day, but I do notice User:David O. Johnson doing their best to keep up. We now have an 11,000 word article, and I don't understand a number of today's content additions. I will start in now and do what I can, but tired. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
There's little I care less about than the timesink caused by dis-infoboxes and the perpetual discussions about dis-infoboxes, particulary while article content needs to be developed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
But it would be nice if a) someone fixed the image sizes so that they fill the box, and b) we replaced the ridiculous blue-haired image of Maduro. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I left two bare URLs in the article for content I'm still developing; something important came up, and I have to dash out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
The Endorsements section spent at least four months in a poor state; along with other expansion tags added to the article, maintenance tags partly prevented this article from running In the News when it was relevant. Endorsements have now been moved out (as they long could have been, as many election articles have separate endorsement Lists), and the article is tag-free for the first time in months. Unfortunately, the article missed running on the main page. Perhaps if something occurs to bring the article back to ITN attention, it and related articles won't be still riddled with maintenance tags. With so many editors working so hard to keep up with an evolving situation, and needing to prioritize, please consider using the talk page for communicating issues rather than edit summaries and maintenance tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I appreciate your frankness, though I hope it has come earlier. I did think of ITN as a reason that you oppose to tagging, but as you’ve never mentioned that to me directly, and I haven’t followed the ITN discussion, I soon forgot about it. I do hope you had told me your concern directly instead of focusing on my editing style. BTW, I don’t think I have added any new tags to the article recently. If memory serves, I have removed two. Regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Don't take it personally -- I don't think you can be held responsible for the state of the Endorsements section :) It's not only ITN; it can be discouraging for many editors any time, mainpage or not, to try to work on an article riddled with maintenance issues-- especially when those issues keep growing. I've thought of unwatching hourly. I do try to prioritize working out maintenance before I add further on any article, so when a topic is fast-moving, that stalls me from content contributions. Now I've just started a list instead (which is pages long); this section also serves as my apology/excuse for not being able to get the article in shape sooner; I still have scores of sources to add, and that affects what we name the Aftermath article, and how soon we get to it. At least now I feel like the page size isn't completely out of control. But I have guests arriving for two days, so I won't be able to add the content I had hoped to have in by now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Parish/parroquia map
@SandyGeorgia, JNOJ1423, and FelipeRev: The parish/parroquia map is not currently in the lead; state/estado -> municipality/municipio -> parish/parroquia -> centre/centro -> table/mesa. This map does have some problems:
it doesn't have the <title="...">... parameters in the .svg source, so mouseover doesn't show which parish is which, and editing the .svg file directly doesn't allow searching for parish names; this makes the file difficult to edit by non-experts in Venezuelan administrative geography.
I don't see any argument against including the map in the PUD results section. If someone handles these problems, then it might be considered for adding to the lead, together with the CNE blank parish-level map. Boud (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Oops; sorry for my carelessness. When I looked at it, I thought it was the same as the municipality map and that someone had mistranslated. Since there's a copyright issue, I won't self-revert, so thanks for letting me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Images
... are getting out of control and crowding/dominating text. Please see MOS:IMAGES.
Also, see WP:GALLERY. "Misplaced Pages is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article." There are appropriate uses of galleries (eg in articles about art); we don't have that need in the galleries here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello SandyGeorgia; I agree with you, it is an encyclopedia, not a congress of PowerPoints. Besides, I don't agree with having a map that includes half of a sovereign state (Guyana) in the main box. CoryGlee (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
It's gone out of control. Dustfreeworld, when you reinstated this gallery, citing PRESERVE, I'd remind you to also contemplate WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. There are three images of Machado and Gonzalez with his wife that are all essentially the same thing, and two images of Maduro that are essentially demonstrating the same thing. This gallery is not enhancing reader understanding of the topic, and it isn't necessary to duplicate essentially identical images to give the reader an understanding (see WP:GALLERY for appropriate uses of galleries). Since you don't have consensus to add this gallery (and I'm unsure that copyright status is clear), could you please at a minimum reduce it to three images -- the crowd, one of Machado/Gonzalez, and one of Maduro? Misplaced Pages is not a picture book or a repository of images and is not indended to duplicate Commons. CoryGlee, I thought we had gotten Guyana out of the infobox; I'm not sure how it came back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
Done, still working on summary back to here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}