Talk:2018 Venezuelan presidential election

Irregularities

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)

@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)

@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)

Colors

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)

May I ask why, on the map of international recognition of different presidents, one is red and one is green? The choice of those two colours is easy to read as bias. Perhaps more neutral colours should be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CC62:6A00:CD7A:D3D6:7732:C1DB (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Campaign

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)

NGOs

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) Struck content from confirmed sockpuppet, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE

@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 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)

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)

Quotes

User:ZiaLater gain a consensus here please.ApolloCarmb (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC) Struck content from confirmed sockpuppet, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE

@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)

Exactly, so discuss and dont blindly revert.ApolloCarmb (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Struck content from confirmed sockpuppet, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE

@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)

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)

The second quote implicitly condemns Maduro. I fail to see the need for those quote boxes.ApolloCarmb (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Struck content from confirmed sockpuppet, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE

"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)

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) Struck content from confirmed sockpuppet, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE

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)

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)

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)

@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)

Home state

@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)

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)

Article size

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

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

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

Spanish article

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)

Independent turnout numbers

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)

@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)

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

Range of estimates

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

• 17.32% (independent est.)

• 25.8% (opposition estimates)

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)

Well, it's a source of contention now. The numbers are not used in the infobox on the Spanish language version and they should not be used in this infobox either. The 17.32% figure is ludicrous, based on voting intention polling, and the 25.8% figure came from an oppostion party's exit polling. What's more, the 17.32% figure is not found in ANY of the three citations linked to it, and the 25.8% figure was only mentioned in one. If it's important to you that the disagreement over turnout is on the page then you should do that in the main text of the article, as the Spanish language version does. These estimates - all of which appear to be from exit polling data, at best - have no place in the Infobox. Raygillgumm (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Raygillgumm: I'm sorry, but first off, you can find the 17.32% figure in the second source (Huffington Post). The figures are consistent with the last intention polls and with the growingly inhabilitation of candidates and political parties. These figures aren't all from exit polling data, the independent figure was obtained by a main pollster in Venezuela, which before giving the final participation estimate also published five different updates throughout the election day; the MUD isn't just "an opposition party": it is the largest coalition of opposition parties in Venezuela, which I should mention was also inhabilitated from participating. Last but not least, like I said in my edit summary, the article Spanish also includes the figures in the infobox, not just the main text. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

Can you point to any examples of this? because I follow Venezuelan news and I have never seen it before the election, see my message on 21:22 21 May 2018. -- SatanicSanta 02:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Here there are some examples: [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] --Jamez42 (talk) 02:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

All but one of these articles is about this election. -- SatanicSanta 02:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Those are examples of Meganalisis being "cited in Venezuelan media and occasionally in international media". They don't have to be about this particular election. Hegsareta (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Wrong map

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)

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

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)

Sources in the lede

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)

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

United Nations in lede

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)

Add North Korea to countries recognizing the elections on the map

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

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

References

Misleading map

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)

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)

@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)

There is no harassment, just because you happened to like the garbage that the OP posted with doesn't make what I did harassment. Wingwraith (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Zia, the map is still problematic. According to the references in the article only France, Germany, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom in Europe have made explicit statements rejecting the legitimacy of the election. A statement one person at the EU is not good enough to colour all of the sovereign countries in Europe in "red", until they have made individual statements on the issue. You need to change the map so that only those countries (UK, France, etc) who have made their own statements are included. Venezuela has direct diplomatic relations with individual European nations with their own Foreign Ministries. These relations are not organised through the EU. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Claíomh Solais:  Done – EU status removed from map. Individual and joint statements by countries accepted, however. ----ZiaLater (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Claíomh Solais: Actually, it seems like a joint statement by the EU is coming on Monday regarding the elections. This will most likely be included following the statement.[1]

Telesur

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)

@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)

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

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

re "telesur isn't a RS for anything else other than the views of the govt of Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Uruguay, and Bolivia" may as well say the same thing about BBC, Voice of America, Associated Press, the New York Times, etc. and the British and American governments. TeleSur does reporting on things not necessarily related to the ALBA countries, for example the Zapatistas as well as a variety of American issues (even things as "small" as a local fast food chain in Portland, Oregon unionizing). There are journalists for TeleSur around the world, and even the English, Spanish, and Portuguese ones promote fairly different perspectives (the English one is quite a bit less left-wing compared to the Spanish and Portuguese ones, because the leadership is different). -- SatanicSanta 02:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

TeleSur receives direct funding from the Venezuelan and the governments mentioned before, and its headquarters are located in Caracas. Chávez was also one of its main promoters, and its founder, Aram Aharonian, even said that Chávez "took the reins" of Telesur and used "propaganda as rolling news". So, it's reasonable to assume that TeleSur is potentially WP:PUS in the article. It should also be mentioned that most of these sources were added by a SPA sockpuppet. --Jamez42 (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

BBC and Voice of America receive direct funding from their associated governments. I don't see how that is any different. Propaganda is really a neutral term, so that argument is pretty meaningless. TeleSur is no more "propaganda" for the ALBA governments than BBC is for the British government, Russia Today is for the Russian government, or the many U.S.-funded media outlets are for the U.S. government. All I'm saying is if we're going to disregard TeleSur as an "unreliable source" there is no reason to not consider the other sources unreliable as well, because these other governments are involved in these elections as well (U.S. reps have been openly advocating for military coups, Canada did not permit Venezuelan expats to vote, the United Nations refused to send observers, the list goes on). -- SatanicSanta 03:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

With the exception that this is not an election in the United Kingdom or in the United States, but Venezuela. I'd understand the concern if the BBC and Voice of America were used as the primary sources in their respective countries elections. I should also note that personally I have done my best to provide multiple sources from Venezuela, so if their reliability is put into question I'd be glad to know. --Jamez42 (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done – Cuba, Iran, Syria, Turkey. That should be all of the TeleSUR sources regarding recognition. ----ZiaLater (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@ZiaLater:: WP:PUS is clear we don't use outlets like telesur for anything else except for the views of the governments of Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Uruguay, and Bolivia. Your pet pro-Maduro theories about how accurate telesur's reportage is concerning the support by select governments for the election or the NPOV role that it plays in this article are irrelevant to the discussion. The kind of revert is wholly legitimate as it is, unlike your kind of revert, in accordance with Wikipedia's editing guidelines so do not revert it until we get the issue sorted out. Wingwraith (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wingwraith: Relax. I just removed a lot of the TeleSUR sources and found better ones.----ZiaLater (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@ZiaLater:: Doesn't change the fact that you are pro-Maduro. Also I've cleaned up the reactions section and removed your pet project of a map in the process as it is redundant. Per WP:BRD do not restore it until we've sorted the issue out. Wingwraith (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wingwraith:, you're being rude. WP:BRD does not encourage reverting, and if there are other changes to be made they don't have to be made all at once, especially if it includes deleting sourced content or media. --Jamez42 (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jamez42: What exactly are you proposing? You don't need to make 100 different reverts when you can do it all in one go. Wingwraith (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wingwraith: I'm proposing that they don't have to be reverts and that non controversial edits come first. For instance, I think there would be more agreement of a clean up of the reactions section and to use a bullet list, and later on deletion could be discussed. --Jamez42 (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Yes I putting the reactions in a bullet list but you reverted it. Please revert that back. Wingwraith (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wingwraith: No, because you also deleted several statements and it was done in one go, disruptively. I can help out with the sorting, but deletion must be discussed.--Jamez42 (talk) 07:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Which ones were deleted? Just say it here and then we edit it in one go like I said we don't need to make 100 different reverts doing it like that is just a waste of time. Wingwraith (talk) 07:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Bolivia's and Ecuardor's declarations if I'm not mistaken. I deleted part of the quotes since they were not about the elections, fell under WP:UNDUE and were part of the content added by the sockpuppet Apollo. --Jamez42 (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Just included a bullet list, might need clean up. --Jamez42 (talk) 07:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jamez42: No they were not deleted. Also we don't need a separate recognition section when we can just integrate it into the main reactions section and the map is also redundant. Just get rid of them. Wingwraith (talk) 07:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wingwraith: The Recognition section was one of the main updates when the article was nominated to the front page since there was the concern that the section above was only rather a build up of the results. The map was already deleted before by a SPA IP, which justified the deletion saying "people know how to read you know"; it should be included since there is a lot of content and it illustrates better each position. --Jamez42 (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jamez42: The recognition of the election is part of the result of the election. Like I said there's no reason to have separate sections for them. Wingwraith (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@SatanicSanta:: false analogy but that kind of clueless argument was to be expected given your pro-Maduro fanaticism. The BBC isn't like telesur because the British government doesn't exercise editorial control over the content that it produces and in any case what you wrote is just your roundabout way of admitting that telesur is an unreliable source. I understand your whataboutery instinct because you are doing your best to defend Maduro but do realize that the unoriginal arguments that you came up with just aren't going to work so come up with better ones and drop your meaningless soapboxing already. Wingwraith (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Have you actually read TeleSur English? It hardly represents the views of PSUV. -- SatanicSanta 19:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't find it at the moment, but there was a thing someone who used to work at TeleSur English wrote about how the leadership actively pushes out socialists (Marxists) for being "too far left." PSUV has an alliance with communists in Venezuela so the argument that TeleSur is just the views of the government is pretty flimsy. There are serious editorial differences in the language variants (Spanish, English, Portuguese), as well as the national ones (United States, Syria, Venezuela, Nicaragua, etc.). Also (sorry for the repeated replies), stop calling everyone on here who disagrees with you a pro-Maduro fanatic soapboxer. It's extremely clear you're anti-Maduro. Why should someone opposed to Maduro get any more say in how this article is written than someone who supports him? Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, is it not? -- SatanicSanta 19:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Because your arguments just suck, there's no other way to say it. You don't seem to understand that Wikipedia edits are subject to policies and regulations, not just personal opinions and whataboutery. It's one issue for you to personally think that telesur is a reliable source, it's another to think that it's a reliable source that can be used on Wikipedia. Wingwraith (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

LOL @ Wingwraith trying to claim Zia is actually bias in favour of President Maduro! OK. Wikipedia is an international project with a neutral point of view policy, its not 'Murika First-pedia or Libertarianopedia. You really need to understand this, we are not here to take sides on geopolitics in the article mainspace. The BBC has throughout most of its existence had MI5 vet its employees to make sure they have the right (capitalist, imperialist) views. We don't get to say that TeleSur isn't good enough because it doesn't support Anglo-American imperialism. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

A predictably pathetic response. I'll make it easier for you to understand since you obviously didn't get it the first time: stop editing Wikipedia like it's your fucking blog. Don't use the grammatical person "we" when you don't even know how WP:PUS works and quit everybody's time with your paranoid pro-Maduro conspiracy theories. You need to come up with actual arguments if you want to disprove the established position that telesur is not a reliable source instead of relying on these hysterical arguments where you just ramble on about capitalism or imperialism. Wingwraith (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Map

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)

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

We don't need the map, it's redundant when we already have a (currently two) section which is/are dedicated to explicating the reactions to the election. Per WP:BRD do not remove it until we have sorted this issue out. Wingwraith (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic and Japan were also included in the section. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Could Vietnam be added to the map? Jp16103 00:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jp16103:  Not done Your edit was only an association in Vietnam, not its government. Also, we have agreed not to use primary sources such as TeleSUR, MINCI, etc.----ZiaLater (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, I was under the impression the association was part of a government program since the ambassador is involved. Jp16103 02:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Images

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)

Falcon

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

As far as I know, in the electoral ballot he was listed in the options of the parties Avanzada Progresista, COPEI and if I'm not mistaken MAS. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Copei was the main party. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Strange, I'm almost sure he started his campaign as the candidate for Avanzada Progresista, and if I recall correctly this was also his party during the last elections, including the regional ones (where he was the candidate of the Lara state). I also noticed the numbers above list "GPP", "AP" and "Others", AP probably stands for this party. I have the feeling COPEI is listed because it was the party most voted in the ballots, but if a reference is found that states that he registered as a COPEI candidate I'd agree to change it. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I was going to say, I thought he was Avanzada Progresista as well. The CNE does show in the results that Falcon is Copei. Strange. ----ZiaLater (talk) 03:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Legislative councils

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

@Jamez42: what do you think ? --Panam2014 (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Panam2014: If the results are included in a separate article I'd only support to start it as a list. However I think they could be included easily as a new section, and all the process, including the conduct and the rections, is virtually the same. --Jamez42 (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Reactions vs. Recognition sections

Creating a new section here to discuss this.

The reaction is different from recognition in these ways:

• Many countries reacted to the elections before they occurred.
• Some have reacted, but did not mention recognition
• Detailing the recognition by different governments is vital information regarding this article

I propose that we summarize in the Reactions section the type of responses from governments (ex. "France, UK, US stated that the elections would not be democratic"). I think this would slim down the article some and would improve readability. I will get to work on it.----ZiaLater (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

There's no reason to have separate sections for them as recognition of the election is a type of reaction to it. At the very least you can include the recognition section as a sub-section of the reactions section. Wingwraith (talk) 08:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I've integrated the sections per this there was a lot of material that was redundant and the categories didn't reflect the pre-election post-election divide properly. Wingwraith (talk) 08:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done @Wingwraith: Please discuss this some more. Some of the content you moved was not in the correct positions (ex. info stated before election was placed in "Post-election" section.----ZiaLater (talk) 09:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Then just move the content to its proper place why would you remove all the categories? Wingwraith (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: I will amalgamate the sections as we now have three sections that deal with the outcome of the election (somebody put in a new aftermath section) if you don't respond to this comment. Also please add New Zealand's non-recognition of the election per this. Wingwraith (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wingwraith: I'll try to consolidate it in some form.----ZiaLater (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Both Zimbabwe and Irak seem to have congratulated the reelection of Maduro.[20][21] I worry about primary sources since I haven't found other outlets, but this was announced by the ministry.--Jamez42 (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jamez42: I think we should wait for secondary sources. Good find though.----ZiaLater (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Notifying users often associated with elections for this discussion. @Impru20: @Panam2014: ----ZiaLater (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

'agree with ZiaLater. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Recognition

@Jim1138: At the end of the sections that records the nations that have recognised the election it is mentioned that a lot of these carribean nations depend on Venezuelan oil. This is bias and propaganda through the back door. It is implicitly saying that is the only reason those nations recognised the result.

Another problem with this is that the source being used to source that statement does not even mention the presidential elections. The source states that these nations will oppose sanctions because they get oil, nothing is said about the presidential elections. So it appears whoever added this is drawing their own conclusions.91.235.142.81 (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Pinging other recently involved editors. @Jamez42, ZiaLater, DadaNeem, Jp16103, LSELACC, and Plastikspork: Jim1138 (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my edit summary, the nations mentioned are part of CARICOM and of Petrocaribe, and it should be noted that the latter was promoted by president Chávez. Their support of Venezuela is not something new and has been commented by analysts mostly during votings in the OAS. The phrase is relevant and should be kept. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Carnet de la Patria

The "Vote Buying" section includes a photo and a quotation about a Carnet de la Patria, but nowhere in the article is there an explanation of why this is significant. Derek M (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Vote buying is an electoral crime in Venezuela. The article mentions that Lucena forbids Maduro from giving gifts, but we could add the article of the law that is violated. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry that I was not clear. I think it is clear in the article that vote buying is illegal in Venezuela. I was referring to "Carnet de la Patria" specifically - what is it, and why did Maduro want to buy votes from people specifically who had one? Additionally, from the Spanish Wikipedia it looks like it is a form of voter suppression, which would certainly be relevant to this article, but it would be useful to have the input from someone who does not have to rely on Google Translate like I do. Derek M (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Derek M: Oh, perfect. The Carnet de la Patria is basically an ID card created by the government. In theory, the card was issued to ease the access of people to social programs, including the CLAP food distribution. However, since it has been politicized (something that was included in the last OHCHR report on Venezuela) and the distrust of the government, many people have been reluctant to ask for it. As early as the Constituent Assembly elections, Maduro has invited followers to scan their Carnet de la Patria after voting in the so called red points, which in many instances has allowed him to offer gifts, and thus, vote buying. Because all of this, there are also many rumors regarding the Carnet, such as that if you ask for one, you'll be inscribed in the ruling PSUV party or your votes count as votes to the PSUV. A few months ago Reuters did a terrific investigation on the matter. There have also been reports of people that have been rejected medical or social assistance for not having the card. Given all of this, I'm not sure if I would exactly call it as voter supression. Cheers! --Jamez42 (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Thanks for the source, I added some more information to the Vote Buying section. Now it is more obvious why there is a picture of a Carnet de la Patria there. If you think it could use further improvement, let me know.Derek M (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Image of someone eating garbage

See here. Is this article better off with that image? Is that image excessively POV. Is prose instead satisfactory? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: I'm not sure if I follow the question, but I try to explain in my edit summary how the picture illustrates the crisis. I think few images do it as well as the people currently eating from the garbage. However, I'd like to hear other editors thoughts on the issue. --Jamez42 (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. But, I think we need to be careful about such images. This article is 2018 Venezuelan presidential election, not Crisis in Venezuela or Shortages in Venezuela. I think words will do per WP:ASTONISH. Images really speak very loudly. Crisis in Venezuela could use one and Shortages in Venezuela could use one. Right now, Crisis in Venezuela has two and Shortages in Venezuela has five, including a huge one in the infobox. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:ASTONISH is an interesting read. I point out how this is the first election at the height of the crisis, but you make important points too. If other editors agree, I don't mind removing the image. --Jamez42 (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, my friend. Well, you put the image back, and that was alright per WP:BRD. If others come along and push for removal, fine. If not, then I guess that is what the community wants, so fine too. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

If that's the situation, then that's the situation. NPOV means taking the facts and portraying them as such without attaching a narrative. It doesn't mean taking two POV talking points and finding a common ground between them or giving them equal weight because this is POV. The shortages are something that's very real, and it's well documented that people are eating trash, or whatever else, so why shy away from it? The fact of the matter is that there are over three million refugees. To cherry coat the situation in my mind would be to be POV. What's more, let's be honest, someone eating out of the trash: bad; but what catches the eye are chavista colectivos firing at voters. 191.89.248.231 (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The idea that displaying the common occurrence of people eating from the garbage everywhere in the country is POV or astonishing ... is ... astonishing. I suppose the images of the hundreds of dead children are equally hard for the comfortable to see but no less a common fact. I do not think the images are well placed in this article, and there is too much sandwiching of text, but removing an image of daily life in Venezuela as POV is not on. I support the inclusion of the image. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

It's NPOV because it's being used in an editorial fashion to suggest that there is a politically created "shortage" in an attempt to create a narrative to over-throw the current Government. The United States has thousands of people that have to eat from the garbage, does that mean a picture of one of them should be used in an editorial fashion to suggest that the Republicans need to be overthrown and replaced? Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please let's avoid whataboutism. @Macktheknifeau: As the uploader of the image, I encourage you to read this discussion in Commons. I know the situation is difficult to grasp when someone has not lived in there, so I hope it helps to understand it better. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Pointing out that pictures can be used in an editorial, NPOV fashion, with an example of how such a picture can be used in an editorialised fashion is not "whataboutism". Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

But putting the Unites States as an example is. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I live in the United States and I see people eating out of the trash at least once a week. How is it whataboutism? Its an inappropriate commentary on an election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.225.243.126 (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead: Countries Recognizing Guaido

The lead states: "In the days thereafter, Albania, Canada, Iceland, Israel, Kosova(Kosovo?), the United States, and a number of Latin American countries recognized National Assembly Speaker Juan Guaidó as the legitimate Venezuelan President after the start of the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis."

My thoughts are that whilte it's interesting that countries like Albania, Israel, Iceland, and Kosova(?) don't recognize the election, and do recognize Guaidó, due to the geographical location (ie South America, and not Europe or the Med) more importance should be placed on South American countries, as it is their continent and their neighbour. What I would recommend is switching out Albania, Israel, Iceland and Kosova(?) for Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Peru. Four for four. Let me know what you all think about this. Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The lead should be a tighter summary, with mention of specific countries limited to few to none. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

"In the days thereafter the majority of North and South America recognized National Assembly Speaker Juan Guaidó as the legitimate Venezuelan President after the start of the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis."? 191.89.248.231 (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Or even, "in the days thereafter the OAS, Lima Group, and majority of South American countries recognized..." South America shouldn't be sidelined for the US, Russia, and China as this Venezuela is a South American country and a largely South American problem. 191.89.248.231 (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Cuban doctors and election tampering

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/17/world/americas/venezuela-cuban-doctors.html SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

This section is not being verified by the source. Went through and corrected many mistakes but ran out of time. Also, it's too controversial a section with extreme claims of voter fraud, that it needs corroborating sourcing. 174.86.46.86 (talk) 12:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it really a "snap election"

"Considered a snap election, the original electoral date was scheduled for December 2018 but was subsequently pulled ahead to 22 April before being pushed back to 20 May.[5][6][7]" Does Venezuela law or the Venezuela Constitution actually allow for a "snap election"? UK law allows that; American law doesn't not. I'm surprised that nobody is challenging this. What does the rules actually say? Americans, in their own country, would not accept an illegally-timed election because it would violate the rules. 24.121.164.158 (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is already underway over at Talk:Nicolás Maduro#Was 2018 election really "considered" a "snap election"?. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Latest edits

@Deadrat: The latest editions have included unsourced content, unreliable source and removal of image without explanation. Elaborating the reasons may be easier.--Jamez42 (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

G'Day Jamez42. I guess you are referring to telesur website as an unreliable source. If a news site sponsored by a state is to be judged as the one acting with bias supporting the state, shouldn't one also consider that the news outlets sponsored by the rich elites will also act with the same bias supporting their sponsors. I think this is not the right place to argue about that. My apologies. btw I didn't understand about the image that you are referring to. What is that? deadrat . kill it 13:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry about the removal of the image, Jamez42 . I just checked the edit history. I was trying to edit in mobile using visual editor and I messed it up. Sorry. deadrat . kill it 13:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Deadrat: No worries :) Regarding Telesur, it is currently deprecated in the English Wikipedia; the discussion to decide this can be read here. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

"Voting activity"

@Notrium and Jamez42: The phrase "voting activity" is misleading, and implies the government could have access to information about voting other than whether or not a person voted, such as what party or candidate was selected. The source makes clear that the information is limited to whether or not a person voted, so that should be reflected in our article. If there is a good reason for us to use a more vague and misleading wording, please explain it. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 05:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The source does make that clear but also explicitly states that some voters were led to believe that the government would additionally know how they voted, and that information should be included as well. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. In the original source, this is based on a single anecdote: One organizer of a food handout committee in the west-central city of Barinas said government managers had instructed her and colleagues to tell recipients their votes could be tracked. “We’ll find out if you voted for or against,” she said she told them. The other source is pure speculation and should be presented as such rather than as fact. Since additional explanation is necessary, I don't think these claims belong in the caption of the image of the card, which describes how the card works and is already quite long. The material could be added elsewhere in the article, but I am removing it from the image caption. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Catia plebiscito nacional de Venezuela de 2017.webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Catia plebiscito nacional de Venezuela de 2017.webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

1607 extra votes

The candidates' votes and the invalid/blank votes (nulos) are 6248864 1927958 989761 43194 177672 per the two sources (I could not see the votes for the two minor candidates in the CNE URL); and the two sources agree on the total number of valid votes being 9389056. But 6248864 1927958 989761 43194 177672=9387449, which is what we have as an automatic calculation in the "Total votes" row of the table in the #Results section, and 9387449 is not 9389056. It's smaller by 1607.

Has there been any discussion (especially with WP:RS) of the 1607 extra votes in the official total of valid votes that are implied by the 9389056 total-vote-count but are extra on top of the four candidates' votes and the null votes? Could there have been 1607 votes for Ratti that were considered valid votes but nobody bothered to declare this officially or note it in the media? Boud (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The 9,389,056 figure is the number of voters attending polling stations ("votantes escrutados"), not the number of votes cast ("votos escrutados", which is given by CNE as 9,387,449, matching the total of valid and invalid). There is often a discrepancy between these two figures because some people attend polling stations, take a ballot, but do not cast it. Number 57 00:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Number 57: Cool, thanks! So the IFES source is wrong in translating "votantes" as "votes" (Cast Votes) instead of "voters". Probably no point trying to argue for adding that at {{election results}}, since I assume that turning up, signing your name, but then not putting your ballot in the box probably is not known to have been a significant event in an election. I guess in places where voting is, in principle, compulsory, like Australia, that might be a particular form of protest against compulsory voting. Boud (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think it would be appropriate to add add to the template. Usually protest votes are invalids and blanks rather than not casting at all. Cheers, Number 57 18:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)