Talk:2024 Venezuelan presidential election/Archive 1

Lead

The lead should summarize the irregularities and concerns of previous elections as well as the government intervention in the opposition primaries. ReyHahn (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: Thank you very much for the lead expansion, I think that the current one summarizes the situation pretty well. Political parties interventions can be included once there is enough information in the article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Conduct

Just found out today that Caracas Chronicles has this beautifully put live update of the primaries. I will try starting the section in short. NoonIcarus (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Article name

Shouldn't the name of this article be "2024 Venezuelan presidential election"? First, unless elections are suspended, there's always going to be a "next election", and second, using the year is in line with naming conventions for articles about elections in other countries. I don't want to simply rename the page without consensus, and I'm not sure how to make the proposal for a name change, so anybody should feel free to do the latter if they agree with me. Ira Leviton (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Two ways to go with it. Change it to 2024 Venezuelan presidential election or wait a bit (Venezuelan elections are a mess). The former will need update if the date changes but it is not a problem. I am ok with both.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and moved the article. It is very unlikely that said elections will take place this year, and the only way that elections don't take place next year is that they are postponed or suspended. At this point, I think it's better to reconsider a rename only if that happens, and keep the current title ("2024 Venezuelan presidential election"). --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The Polling data

After reading the poll source that the article says 60% refused to answer, I saw that it instead said that they were undecided/not commited to either the opposition or PSUV. The author of the source also indicates this in his writing in it. Is there any reason why it is labeled misleadingly in the article? 66.44.40.36 (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Maduro picture

Is Maduro already confirmed? Why is he in the infobox? ReyHahn (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: I found this article that mentions that National Assembly Speaker Jorge Rodríguez said that he was going to tbe the official candiate, but I would say further confirmation is needed. What seems to be clear is pro-government officials ruling out running as candidates. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems to soon to be added to the infobox. The lack of information in the whole process should be reflected here.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: Roger that, I have removed the image accordingly. I have left the PSUV since they're still the ruling party, but leaving the candidate parameter as "to be announced". Let me know what you think. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Recent candidates

Hi @Hulk Pelo:, best wishes. Could you please confirm if the recent candidates added in the infobox have officially inscribed to the electoral process? (Antonio Ecarri Angola, Luis Eduardo Martinez and Daniel Ceballos). If so, said information could be updated in the article. Kind regards, NoonIcarus (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Just reading that this is the case:[1][2][3]. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

Des anyone know how to make the infobox that has all of the candidates smaller? Ballers1919 (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Number 57 18:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead 2

Regarding this edit, what the lead currently needs it's an update. It's from around and before the opposition primaries, in November, and it currently should show the process of the inscription of candidates. That naturally means an update to the article, though. I'll see what I can help with later. NoonIcarus (talk) 11:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Running mates

There's a section in the article's main infobox that mentions "running mates" for candidates, which is blank for all candidates with the exception of Juan Carlos Alvarado being listed as Luis Eduardo Martínez' running mate. The figure of a running mate doesn't exist in Venezuelan elections since the Vice President is not an elected official—it's appointed by the President like ministers are. 190.103.58.14 (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Endorsements section

Most of the Endorsements section is primary sourced, WP:UNDUE, and needs to be deleted; only those mentioned in secondary sources should be retained. Please review WP:NOT -- not a directory, not a blog, not a webhost, not a publisher of original thought. The entire section is just not encyclopedic, and not what Wikipedia should be used for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

And many of the bare-URL, primary source tweets don't even verify the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Content moved to Talk:2024 Venezuelan presidential election/Endorsements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

If a politician or former politician, or a political party, states "vote for this candidate". That is an endorsement. The Spanish version of this page includes the political parties that have thrown their support behind a candidate. Most Wikipedia pages that cover elections use an endorsement page. There should be no need for a secondary source when the person states on their OWN social media page "Vote for this candidate", that's an endorsement. Yes, it is possible that some of them were not cited correctly, but the endorsement page is very significant, especially in this election in Venezuela. Let's not undo everything until we can find a solution. There is nothing "blog" or "web host" like of an endorsements page. That is exactly why Wikipedia gives the option to make an Endorsements box, to use it for endorsements.

If it makes more sense, let's clean up the endorsements section INSTEAD of deleting everything. Or if it is easier, let's make a specific page for "Endorsements of the campaigns 2024 Venezuela presidential election" or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballers1919 (talk • contribs) 17:48, May 5, 2024 (UTC)

Please sign and correctly thread your talk page posts. Undue original research to this extent can't be cleaned up; there is narry a secondary source in the lot. Further, this is an important article this year, and the UNDUE primary-source content is overwhelming the article, which also has considerable cleanup needs (including WP:PROSELINE, datedness, prose issues, and more bare URLs); restoring UNDUE content (almost all tweets, not all of which are actually even endorsements) impedes progress that is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Ballers1919, per Wikipedia:Political endorsements and specifically, the inclusion criteria outlined here, [4] "Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable independent sources." That means endorsements shouldn't be sourced to tweets and need a better source. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

See also point 3 on that page. Further, what is on the Spanish Wikipedia has no relevance here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Non-reliable, primary source polling data

Magi Merlin please read WP:RS, this section which utilizes secondary sources, and refrain from adding non-reliable primary source polling data from outlets which reliable secondary sources describe as not meeting Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

And now blanking of text cited to highly reliable sources (eg New York Times);[5] I suggest self-reverting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Ammend your opening paragraph to explicitly reflect in no uncertain terms the disputed and unconfirmed state of this current affair. Otherwise, you are party to political interference in attempting to convey false semiotics. 50.117.139.153 (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

When/if the edit warring stops, this correction still needs to be fixed anew (unlike the other new "pollster"s, Hinterlaces is not new, so the flow is now off). These intervening citations were also lost in edit warring. Magi Merlin could you please engage the talk page here regarding the non-reliability of sources you are using? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

We are not making progress with regard to how to use and evaluate reliable sources (sample); please use the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia, I agree with you. That user is now blocked for edit warring, but their edits with many unreliable sources and content are still in the article. Those need to be removed. It’s a bit difficult as that user made so many edits (over 100 hundred a day! Obviously not a newbie?!) Do you think we should restore to an earlier version before the disruptive editing? But that would also revert some of the later legitimate edits made by you too (e.g. the nyt reference). --Dustfreeworld (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I need to make repairs to the new polling para and see where things stand but have no free time 'til this afternoon ... I don't think the Magi understands WP:RS, and we can't buttress non-RS primary sources with non-independent and dubious secondary sources ... Wikipedia shouldn't be spreading fake news from recently created "pollsters". I'm unsure how to handle Hinterlaces, as it's not a new creation ... will look this afternoon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree that Wikipedia shouldn’t be spreading fake news. I’m not sure how to handle ... IMO remove when in doubt. BTW, I’ve updated this page based on the sources in this article. Feel free to check it for errors :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm still working, but piecemeal today as my time is divided. I was still trying to finish the polling section when the edit warring started ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Finished writing the Polling section, will address UNDUE/non-RS content in tables later (I have found no independent source which endorses these "new pollsters" -- fake news -- and note that any secondary sources added are those with ties to the Maduro administration). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree, remove this propaganda, or you will continue to be forced to defend it. 50.117.139.153 (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the non-reliable primary source data, in some instances backed only by non-independent secondary sources, per the analysis of reliable secondary sources here.

I left Hinterlaces because, although it has the same issues as others, it is a long-standing pollster (albeit with a record of bias), rather than a newly invented website with no history or track record.

These tables are overly complicated and might be reduced to the main candidates (Maduro, Gonzalez Urrutia, Machado).

Should Magi Merlin/Bolt Kjerag/Dirceu Mag return to editing, they need to engage the talk page to discuss and understand reliability of sources and address the analysis by multiple reliable sources about the origin of these "new pollsters"; see WP:ONUS, the policy regarding addition of disputed content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Sock blocked, and has been here before, so other contents should be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Late to this party but for the record, I wish I had caught them and warned you all earlier when their last edit summary mentioned the word soup boxing, which was the same description Bolt Kjerag used to defend their WP:SOAPBOXING on behalf of one particular party in 2024 Pakistani general election. Borgenland (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Borgenland; I am concerned that similar is happening at the es.wikipedia article, but don't really know how to navigage SPI over there. I am seeing involvment at multiple country election articles, suggestive of paid editing (which was always bound to be an issue here). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure also about that, but I think you could either raise it either at the Wiki Village Pump, the Tea House or ANI. That user needs a global block. Borgenland (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we can also ping someone to look into it? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I posted at the es.wikipedia talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Also suggest some sort of page protection to prevent such crappy edits by bona fide hacks. Borgenland (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's enough bad activity here to warrant semi-protection, but we can ask Drmies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protection from the sock? Meh. It works well against IP disruption, but a decent sock will just get autoconfirmed somewhere else. There's ECP, of course, but this sock is so obvious that that detection should be a problem, now that y'all got a good look at them. And if I were you I'd just revert to this version and start again. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

As no one showed up at es.wikipedia to correct the "poll" information, I added it myself there, and flagged the questionable sources (noting that similarly no one showed up to submit a sock puppet investigation at es.wiki, but I don't know how to do that). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Mass Behavior Research

I haven't found anything indicating reliability on this organization (but I haven't had time to dig deep). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I removed two entries (of the tables) sourced to El Universal, per WP:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources. BTW, currently there are some entries cited to facebook or X (twitter), should we keep them? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

That would need investigation ... the article is poor with similar throughout, and I don't have time to fix it all or investigate every instance. Of interest at this point is that socks are active in this article, and there is probably paid editing per viewing the histories of the various socks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Yep. I’m glad that you have removed most of the problematic edits added to the Polls section recently. Magi Merlin is a WP:SPA that has made 253 edits to this article in only three days. Checking every instance would likely be a lot of work ... --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Another (Global Census)

Are the people adding these sources actually reading them ? [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Gónzales in the article lead

Edmundo Gónzales is the main candidate of the Unitary Platform, the lead should be updated to address that. What could be the right wording? ReyHahn (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

ReyHahn the citations in the first sentence of the Polls section may give you the wording you seek ... for example, Reuters and New York Times (Spanish version) specifically refer to Gonzalez Urrutia as the main opposition candidate. I named most of those refs for your re-use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

"Primaries" section

Does anyone think that we should remove the section that talks about the Unitary Platform presidential primaries? It is a lot of information that could just be given a link to the 2023 Unitary Platform presidential primaries instead of explaining everything on this page. Thoughts? Ballers1919 (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

We are far from a WP:PROSESIZE issue, I think it adds context but can be trimmed later if necessary.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Lies

Cite your evidence of a confirmed election result, international news is consistently at odds with the article your disinforming user with. 50.117.139.153 (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Currently we don't have any good sources for the official results - the CNE web server is having difficulty responding to humans and to archivers - though we have a newspaper report on the unofficial estimate. Boud (talk) 11:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Uncited graph, ONUS, BRD

NicorzF104 are you familiar with WP:ONUS and WP:BRD ?

The graph you reintroduced here is uncited original research. No idea is given what sources are being used (and we already know most of the polling sources in the article are essentially "fake news"). I removed the graph on 27 June; WP:BRD applies, and WP:ONUS states that "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". Please engage talk and explain your sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Original research does not belong to article. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I’ve removed the unsourced graph as there’s no response over a week. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Party or coalition

Nicolás Maduro's party is the PSUV, with GPPSB as his coalition. Edmundo González is an independent, and his coalition is the Unitary platform. Either we indicate the party, or the coalition, but the result table show the party for one, and the coalition for the other. When I tried to have both with coalition, it was reverted. When I try for both parties, it's reverted as well. Can we please agree on one or the other? Aréat (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

It should be possible to mention both, but as you say, it should be clear which is which. Kingsif (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I feel like it's clear enough the way it's listed right now, it's clear that the link on the left is to the alliance, and the right is to the party, since "Independent" isn't an alliance. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 09:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Results

It's 9:35 pm (Bogotá time), do we have any official results yet to insert as edits? Forich (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

other than exit polls nope 2601:586:5300:E710:C4B8:E6B5:2937:3337 (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

https://apnews.com/article/5ce255ae90614162590bfe1207d2e1d0

Just got this notification from the AP Joeei101 (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

FYI I have removed the "results" from the infobox. The election result is disputed and we still don't have even the full official figures. There is no rush to add numbers to the infobox, I suggest people wait until it's clear what's happening. John Smith's (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

For the reasons documented in numerous sources, I suggest also that the maps should be removed from the infobox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

"Official" results

Considering that the "official" results are determined by a wing of Maduro's party and nearly everyone else is calling this illegitimate, I'm not sure it's correct or wise to post them at face value. Minerman30 (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

There’s already been evidence of observers being blocked access by the military. I’ve heard that pro-Maduros gangs were stealing ballot boxes. The disparity between exit polls and polls and the actual results is extremely suspicious. 97.81.251.129 (talk) 05:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Minerman30 Exactly. I recall precedent being set when Russia annexed the four Ukrainian oblasts, and someone put the referendum results in an infobox. After lots of discussion in the talk page, the consensus was that the infobox is purely and solely for truthful information. So, the referendum "results" were written in words in the article, and the article cast doubt on the result. The infoboxes were removed.

I ask for permission to remove the vote count from the infobox in this article as they are fabricated. Peter Njeim (talk) 05:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty new to contributing on here so I'm sorry if this sounds dumb, but is it possible to put a disclaimer with the numbers? I'm not sure how likely it is that we will receive the genuine results in the first place. Joeei101 (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joeei101 You can add disclaimers via simply saying they're fraudulent in the article, with references. As for inside the infobox, it's best to remove the numbers entirely, as the Russia annexation referendums precedent set Peter Njeim (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thus far, there's no solid evidence of fraud (at least not any cited in the article or in the news), so I'd say keep the official results for now. Even the US hasn't rejected the results outright, they've just expressed "concern" and so on. If (or probably "when") such evidence emerges, the results can be removed. PtolemyXV (talk) 06:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Currently, the reliability of open government data (WP:ROGD) is a tricky issue in Wikipedia and we don't yet have a good policy on how to handle it. It's not easy to see what guideline could or should be developed. So far the data from this election don't yet seem to be open, but they are likely to be OA very soon. The long-term development of a guideline is needed. Boud (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@PtolemyXV There's some proof of fraud already. The countries who say they're "concerned" are being diplomatic.

Proof of fraud:

1. Electronic voting machine receipts published on the opposition website (https://resultadosconvzla.com). This proves without a doubt that fraud took place.
2. Receipts from electronic voting machines showing Gonzalez flipping Maduro-strongholds by wide margins (one of many shared by this individual): https://x.com/OrlvndoA/status/1817706326836801776
3. Some witnesses shared figures that a Maduro-stronghold flipped to Gonzalez (Venezuela election, as it happened: Maduro declared winner, González claims victory | AP News)
4. The Edison Research exit poll showing 65% for Gonzalez and 31% for Maduro (conducted illegally due to ban on exit polling (specifically enacted to prevent detection of fraud)): https://www.edisonresearch.com/edison-research-conducts-exit-poll-in-venezuela
5. The CNE's fabricated "results" are beyond the margin of error of public opinion polling prior to the election. Public opinion does not change 40 points in one week. The exit poll by Edison Research matches the public opinion polling as well, showing that 1 week after the polling deadline, the public opinion remained the same. The fact so many different polling agencies reached similar results demonstrates certainty, not volatility.
6. Reliable sources are claiming definitively that the election was fraudulent: Here’s What to Know About Venezuela’s Flawed Election - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Evidence of fraud:

1. Major left wing governments have opted not to recognize the fabricated "results". This includes the presidents of Chile and of Brazil. This shows that even ideological allies are willing to stand up for democracy over ideology, a telling sign that something is amiss.
2. Venezuela disinvited EU election observers, deported some observers, and prevented other observers from flying in (from the WIkipedia article). This lack of transparency is, once again, specifically designed to prevent detection of fraud, and serves not a single other purpose.
3. Many people were prevented from entering polling centers to witness the vote count (Venezuela election, as it happened: Maduro declared winner, González claims victory | AP News)
4. Venezuela claimed, without any specificity or evidence, that the CNE suffered a "hack", which led to a slow release of the fabricated "results". In democracies, results are released as they come in, complete with detailed precinct/voting station information, not vague tallies with no detailed information.
5. The CNE has refused to put in the effort to fabricate detailed voting information, as it would be easy to prove fraudulent with opposition-held receipts. There is no valid reason that could ever be put forth that would warrant the omission of detailed vote tallies. The only reasonable answer is that such tallies conflict with the fabricated "results".
6. The CNE couldn't be bothered to fabricate the vote percentage of the 8 minor candidates, simply saying they had 4.6% combined. If they truly had 80% of the voting centers tallied, they'd have precise numbers on the minor candidates.
7. In a past election, Smartmatic, the electronic voting machine provider, which could see the real vote tally, publicly claimed that Venezuela fabricated the result (Venezuela Reported False Election Turnout, Voting Company Says - The New York Times (nytimes.com)). This shows that Venezuela has already stolen an election in the past, and is capable and willing to do it again.

There's more evidence of fraudulent behavior, including violent attacks on witnesses, removal of ballot boxes at certain voting centers, arbitrarily extending the closing time of some polling locations for no apparent reason, a viral photo an election worker taking a selfie showing internal data of Gonzalez winning in a landslide ([7]), and other minor behavior. The details of these types of events were well-documented on social media, but that isn't reliable enough to cite here and is also minor compared to the points I mentioned above. Peter Njeim (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

And, this is damning: "Carter Center Statement on Venezuela Election" (Press release). Carter Center. 30 July 2024. Retrieved 31 July 2024. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. The CNE's results should be stated, but not in the info-box. Personally, I think this page should be locked. No idea why it hasn't been locked with all the misinformation on the page. PlayboiCartiLuvr (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Given how Wikipedia still displays the infamous 1927 Liberian election turnout of >1,590% in the infobox, this seems a bit of a silly point. The official published results should be shown regardless, as political positioning can easily influence the decision to pick and choose which articles deserves that kind of edit. A wiki page should not serve as the arbiter of legitimacy, merely as a vector of information.

The controversy over the results and the fraud scandals should be kept as a crucial point of the article body, but selectively omitting information does nothing but deprive the reader and go against the precedent for Wiki election boxes. 2804:14D:5CD1:530F:380E:BD76:CC70:2EB6 (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Open data should be published on the CNE website. The www.cne.gov.ve website seems to have been down for several weeks and www.cne.gob.ve too. There's a 20 July snapshot which has four image files of a scan of a declaration by the candidates to recognise the results of the election. These are not election results data. We could speculate about the responsibility, e.g. either DDOS against the site or technical incompetence, but without sources (including on notability) we can't say anything in the article. Without the data from an official source, nobody will be able to analyse the official data ... Boud (talk) 08:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

While it would be nice to have official data, we can report already what RELIABLE sources are saying. Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary and tertiary sources.--ReyHahn (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: your first sentence is correct. Although your second sentence describes our standard principle, for OGD (open government data), in practice, the sentence is false as a general statement. As explained at WP:ROGD, the full spectrum of OGD from reliable to unreliable for SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 daily count data was (and still is) available on Wikipedia, with broad consensus for making an exception to the principle, as opposed to making arbitrary decisions about which national ministry was publishing reliable data and which was publishing unreliable data. Anyway, for the general case, the place for discussion is the WP:ROGD talk page (or edit the essay directly). For this particular case, we'll find out during the next few hours and days in practice what consensus emerges. There is also a significant qualitative difference between the COVID-19 pandemic and elections: there's no pressure from Wikipedians to publish detailed election data in analogy to daily infection counts. There is also sufficient mainstream media attention for having better availability of secondary and tertiary sources than for many other elections or OGD. Boud (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: A user above (@Peter Njeim:) noted "precedent being set when Russia annexed the four Ukrainian oblasts, and someone put the referendum results in an infobox. After lots of discussion in the talk page, the consensus was that the infobox is purely and solely for truthful information." I would like to note that while this may be true for those articles, it doesn't seem to be the precedent for the rest of Wikipedia. Election articles with accusations of fraud, like the 1960 United States presidential election in Illinois (which would affect the 1960 United States presidential election as a whole) and the 1878 South Carolina gubernatorial election, have both numbers and a map within the infobox. Even outright rigged elections, like the 1927 Liberian general election and the March 1960 South Korean presidential election have the official count in the infobox. It seems to me that if there is a "precedent" for this, this article and those annexation articles are the ones that are out of step. For an actual precedent on this matter, a project-wide discussion should take place but for now this seems like a local consensus type of deal. Wowzers122 (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I propose doing something like the 2010 Ivorian presidential election, where the results of two counts were published in the infobox at once. I think we will have to build on the consequences, and if Maduro is somehow able to retain de facto power in the coming days, weeks or months, then we can highlight him and his results in bold. If Gonzalez becomes a president with real power over at least some part of Venezuela, then we can highlight him and his results in bold too. Obviously, the results with Maduro's victory look rigged, but I (after months of hesitation) personally advocate their fixation in the infobox, as was done in 99% of all elections with frankly rigged results. The fact that we do not write the official results (even rigged) of the organization that conducted the elections, I do not think is right. On the other hand, it is necessary to mention somewhere that the official election results were rigged according to the sources cited. This can be done either in the preamble of the article, or with efn notes, or by adding a parallel count, as we did in the Ivorian presidential election of 2010.  PLATEL  (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Wowzers122 You're right, the Russian referendums article is an exception, not a rule it seems. Maybe emotional support for Ukraine led to that decision. I agree that a discussion should be had for this matter, I don't think it's right to make rigged results look legitimate. I like @PLATEL's suggestion of showing both counts Peter Njeim (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Guyana

Guyana does not belong on this election map. It's a separate sovereign country. Please remove it. 92.220.74.144 (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Remove the maps entirely from the infobox; there will not be reliably sourced data for filling them in, and they will only lead to an ongoing dispute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: They should be there as Venezuela claims it as theirs. Disputed areas are shown in the Indian election maps, Pakistani elections maps, Russian election maps, Ukrainian election maps, Azerbaijani election maps, and Artsakhian election maps. Why should Venezuela be the exception to this? Wowzers122 (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what the question is; no portion of Guyana voted in this election, and there will be no reliable/independent data for any part of Venezuela. The map is UNDUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I thought this discussion was about the inclusion of the claimed areas of Guyana in the election map. If there's no data for Venezuela to even have an election map then I don't care if it's removed from the infobox. Wowzers122 (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Only the international recognized territories matter or cases, where there has an "election" on occupied territories. Ukraine has no claims on disputed areas. Ukraine has their territories and marked occupied areas as "temporary occupied".

Venezuela has neither power over their territory, nor have they had elections, nor any bit of control there. Doesn't make sense to add Esequibo to the maps. Pettylein (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Hinterlaces

El Mundo [8]: None of these polls were made public in Venezuela, not like the one by Hinterlaces despite being prohibited by law. This company, owned by an advisor to Maduro, declared its boss the winner without any credibility, but stirred up the hornet's nest before time. The opposition already knew that the revolution's plan is to declare victory, barring a major surprise, and this false poll, like all those published during the campaign, confirmed this.

Yahoo! News [9]: Portals such as Globovisión, El Universal and Notitarde, media outlets that usually replicate the official narrative, echoed the poll carried out at noon by the consulting firm Hinterlaces, which is close to the government.

France 24 [10]: Officialism runs its own polls, such as Hinterlaces, which give Maduro the win with 54.2%.

El Pitazo [11]: Óscar Schémel is the founder and president of Hinterlaces, [...]. His studies have always openly favored the government of Nicolás Maduro., [Schémel] has generated controversy for his predictions, which at one time favored Hugo Chávez and now Nicolás Maduro., Schémel has been accused of maintaining ties with the government and receiving funding to conduct his polls, in which high and erroneous estimates were made in favor of Chavismo on at least 10 occasions, according to the Poderopedia website.

According to El Pitazo and Spanish Wikipedia, Schémel, president of Hinterlaces, was elected member of the 2017 Constituent National Assembly of Venezuela, has received a National Journalism Award and leads a show broadcasted in Globovisión, which from what I understand seems to be uncontroversially considered as linked to the government.

EFE [12]: Despite these statements, the vast majority of pollsters -except for the officialist Hinterlaces- predict a wide victory for González Urrutia, the option of the Democratic Unitary Platform (PUD), the largest opposition coalition.

Vozpópuli [13]: [...] the Hinterlaces company has published an exit poll that favors Maduro with 54.57% of the votes. A statistic that should be taken with a grain of salt, since Óscar Schemel, president of the polling firm, is a well-known advisor to Chavismo.

There seems to be a pretty solid consensus among reliable sources that Hinterlaces is partisan and favorable to the Venezuelan government. Schémel's background does not help in thinking the opposite. I don't think Hinterlaces should be included at the charts of polls in this article, though it should surely be mentioned somewhere in the article. Super Ψ Dro 11:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It's also interesting to see what websites are being used to cite Hinterlaces polls. One of them is Últimas Noticias [14] which has this to say about the opposition: Maduro thus leads the voting intention with 55.6 percent, followed by the candidate of the extremist right - whose members have lobbied to ask for sanctions against the Venezuelan people - Edmundo González with 22.1 percent; a clear advantage of more than 34 points for the current head of state. The exact same paragraph is also given by the also cited Prensa El Guayanés [15]. In the rest of cases it is Facebook or hinterlaces.net that are cited.

By the way, at hinterlaces.net you can see the following headlines: "Emmanuel Todd: "We are witnessing the final fall of the West"", "Why does Maduro win?" (written by Schémel himself), "Machado's hidden strategy" (again by Schémel) and a lot of articles about the Guayana Esequiba, that more than half of Guyana's territory that Maduro organized an annexation referendum for. Super Ψ Dro 11:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Disagree, removing the only pollster that managed to predict the actual election result (in addition to several other pollsters which have already been removed from this article), is in bad taste and would do a disservice to the readers of this article Baboogie (talk) 11:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Probably most of the polling agencies have connections to non-neutral groups with interests either for or against Maduro. At the moment, we have plenty of warnings about Hinterlace being suspected of being unreliable with the template {{Unreliable source?}}, so I don't think removing its data from the charts would (yet?) be justified. Moreover, what would be more convincing than the news agencies' analyses would be reports by statisticians, e.g. by FiveThirtyEight, regarding which of the listed polling organisations they consider to at least publish a statistically valid method and have credibility for actually applying that method. Do we have en.Wikipedia articles for any of the seven polling organisations listed at 2024 Venezuelan presidential election#Credibility of polling firms? If they're not yet WP-notable, then it's difficult to assess their reliability, since that has to be done on a talk page or over at WP:RS/N and it can be more difficult to find old conversations and rough consensus summaries. Boud (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not difficult to assess reliability on websites or twitter (X) accounts that came into existence mere months before the election, according to reliable sources. Unlike the others, Hinterlaces has been around as a pro-Maduro pollster for a longer time. And the Efecto Cocuyu sources discuss the statistical and methodological shortcomings; you can get a glimpse from google translate if you don't speak Spanish.

I support removal of Hinterlaces along with the new and clearly dubious "pollsters". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Baboogie: The election results have not been published yet, despite mainstream media using the words "results". Only a very minimal announcement has been made. Since the late 2000s, most middle-to-rich income countries' election authorities have published full tables of the detailed election counts on their websites. The CNE's website is currently not running. In a substantive sense, the results have not been published, which is why Latin American (and other) authorities are pressuring the CNE to release the full detailed results. Regarding removing the only pollster that managed to predict the actual election result, even if the current "numbers out of nowhere" are treated as "the result", if an unreliable source happens to match that official result, that doesn't make it reliable. Wrong methods and low-quality data can give right results by chance. Boud (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

ORC Consultores and other red-linked sources

Is there any reason not to include ORC Consultores in the credibility table? I've added it, but my understanding of the Spanish might lack some nuances. Boud (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Plus I added others. Again to encourage article creation, they are Hercon Consultores, Meganálisis, Hinterlaces, Mass Behavior Research (ref: USAID partner but not prime or sub-partner). Boud (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

And Medianálisis itself = Medianálisis (Q59330943). Boud (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

C-Informa is apparently a "fact-checking coalition" of "media and digital rights organizations in Venezuela created in November 2022". Boud (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Best I can determine, ORC Consultores is a long-standing credible pollster. The BBC cites them,[16][17] [18] they are not one of the group of newly created "pollsters", and Efecto Cocuyo didn't seem to turn up the problems typical of the new pollsters (sample). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Just adding the blue link to Efecto Cocuyo. That on its own doesn't make Efecto Cocuyo reliable, but our article has been around since 2015 with apparently little editing controversy, and the unique content on its talk page takes us to Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources, which looks like a very good place to benefit from discussions and their summaries. Boud (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

There has been considerable controversy about VENRS in the past, so proceed with caution. I think it has it about right, but it's only a WikiProject page. As far as I know, no one has challenged Efecto Cocuyo's reliability, and their FactCheck pages explain the basics of statistical reliability in polling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that WP:VENRS is only a WikiProject page, and I see that there were two RfCs, both withdrawn, and a WP:RS/N, discussion, also withdrawn, and I see that there was a recently closed (25 May 2024) arbitration case. About 60-70% of the edits/text are by the two people listed in the arbitration case. So I empathise with your concerns.

All the same, it makes sense to have the discussions about the sources in a centralised place, and attracting attention to it right now that Venezuela is in the media spotlight might attract enough previously uninvolved editors to clean up WP:VENRS for whatever major problems remain. I also see several comments in the longer RfC that WP:OWN problems can best be countered by people editing the problems, and working through individual blocking points on the talk page there. On the other hand, I'm not volunteering to be active on this topic, so it wouldn't be justified for me to override your judgment here regarding the use of a banner at the top of this talk page (you are listed as having four edits at WP:VENRS). So I'll just put a comment here, taking the liberty of bold font to attract the attention of people who just browse rapidly.

To anyone interested in improving the list/analysis of Venezuela-related sources, please look through WP:VENRS and feel free to make improvements and discuss problems on the talk page there. Keep in mind the past concerns, as mentioned in this particular discussion; a lot of work might be needed to improve the quality there. Boud (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, Boud ... I just wanted to make sure you were aware that there were issues and accusations ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, that "controversy" is because one user thought that VENRS was claiming to be policy, rather than a project page (most active projects maintain some sort of internal advice on sources), and because the same user thought it was wrong that only active WP:VEN users had discussed the sources (again, as a project page, that's pretty normal). I think it's ultimately benefitted - already - from getting the extra attention, but it's not like the recommendations at VENRS are controversial, only its overuse. Of course, remembering that it's advice from a project is where to start. Kingsif (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with all of that; thx Kingsif. Still an <ouch> there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Everything is an ouch, it's hard enough to keep up with what sources may have been usurped before worrying about the things being reported. I'm stalking this article as ever, but it's mostly been kept very tightly focused so far so... Kingsif (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It will stay that way as long as we have English-language, high-quality sources doing the bulk of the reporting. Once they lose interest, we're back to Spanish-language sources, but missing the editor who kept up with those the best. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

To check

Boud I am having serious but intermittent connectivity issues, so am putting this here per your edit summary as a reminder to check the numbers when my connection improves. Unless someone else does first. Meanwhile, I'm chasing my tail on edits :(. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Boud I think this looks right (but I didn't spend a ton of time on it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

'After the official confirmation of candidates' table

Disclaimer: In my edits of the After the official confirmation of candidates table today, mostly, except for one exception where I happened to notice an anomaly, I've aimed to tighten up the quality of the citations, with tags of work needing to be done to find proper sources, without checking the values in the source against the values in the table. Reasons include: without a source, I couldn't check anyway; there's not much point checking {{better source}} cases; and I'm happy to let someone else do the work for the cases where e.g. I added an archive. So please don't think that my edits imply that I checked the data against the sources.

For people who don't like red links, Venezuela is still going to have elections over the next 5, 10, or 50 years or more, so if any of these polling organisations are notable, it would be good to have Wikipedia articles on them. If they're not notable, then that's something the reader can take into account in judging the reliability of the data. Notability does not imply reliability, but non-notability means that not much is known about the organisation. The risk of a conspiracy of front organizations or disinformation increases when not much is known about them. Boud (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:RED is a good thing :) :)

Generally, I agree that the page has too many tables filled with useless junk, and I'd be happy to see a lot of them go. The main polls don't fall in to that group, but the rest is not going to be meaningful ten years from now (WP:NOTNEWS).

Thanks for doing this work! (I'm disinclined to check numbers that aren't likely to matter anyway.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

We can safely leave the exit poll by Lewis & Thompson Analytics Data out of the table, per Infobae's analysis of it as disinformation, though it might be useful if someone wants to start a #Disinformation section. Could be a Pandora's box, since disinformation is probably not a government monopoly. Boud (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

CNE website

http://www.mp.gob.ve/index.php/2024/07/29/fiscal-general-tarek-william-saab-informo-que-se-inicio-investigacion-por-ataque-al-cne/

Reminds of 2019 Venezuelan blackouts ... the usual next step is to to throw someone in jail and blame them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

So at least the official story is an attack on the servers. Boud (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Appears so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Boud who called that one right, huh ? https://dolartoday.com/fiscal-saab-abre-investigacion-a-maria-corina-machado-por-supuesto-ataque-informatico-desde-macedonia-del-norte/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't help but think of the 1988 Mexican presidential election and its infamous "se cayó el sistema" moment. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

International reactions to the results of the election, map

The map shows New Zealand recognizes the election but does not provide any sources, I can't find any either so I assume its just a mistake Nerdyorc wiki (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

International reaction map is inaccurate

The map includes entities that have not yet recognized the result of the election, such as Bahrain, New Zealand, and the Chinese Taipei authorities.

The map's creator seems to have mislabeled Qatar as Bahrain. New Zealand and the Chinese Taipei authorities have made no statement in regards to recognizing this election.

Additionally, Serbia has not been colored as recognizing the election, even though Vucic has congratulated Maduro with his victory. Mysteriousgadfly (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The usual solution to all of these problems is to send all of this non-notable mess off to a sub-page, just like we had to do at Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis. This problem occurs and recurs because people always turn these kinds of sections in to an UNDUE list. Send the list to its own page, move the map there too, and let's have these discussions on another talk page, so this page can focus on the DUE WEIGHT content that matters. (Which sources summarize to the most notable, rather than listing every Tom, Dick and Harry.) I was hoping the days of these endless lists and maps had ended with the last similar go-round. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

See International reactions to the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Results

@Number 57: El Pais source does not claim that Edmundo Gonzalez have 6,275,162 votes. Panam2014 (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Panam2014: See this edit which includes the quote 2.759.256 votos a favor de Nicolás Maduro y 6.275.180 para Edmundo González Urrutia from this archive. Boud (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

0 votes for third candidates?

Struggling to confirm this as the link is dead but it seem implausble that all of the third candidates received 0 votes. If instead numbers are not provided or not known this should surely be indicated? Peetel (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The 0 votes are unsourced, and the percentages and totals are automatic calculations by the {{election results}} template. You're welcome to help understand how the template defaults can be overridden for handling incomplete results - see Template talk:Election results#ipct1, ipct2 don't seem to work. Boud (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed Boud (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Rampant Vandalism

The user 203.174.163.236 has been removing what they call "US Propaganda" that had sources and they had added an entire paragraph with awful grammar that was talking about "trumpism" or something with very poorly thought out arguments against the PUD. GigaDerp (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I see @Borgenland reverting the vandalism. Unfortunately, I am unable to effectively revert the changes due to my account status or something. Anyways, thanks Borgenland! GigaDerp (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I had tried to put pp last night but apparently not enough vandalism was occurring back then. Just repeated request at RFPP. Borgenland (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Results (b)

The election results are available for registered voters , so there's a prospect that they will sooner or later be published openly. Boud (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: The WSJ article sounds good, but it's paywalled and un-archivable, so I adjusted that sentence to include more accessible refs. If there's any useful info there apart from what we already have from the other sources, could you please give it briefly here or add it as a |quote= parameter (e.g. 1 or 2 key sentences)? Is WSJ only talking about resultadospresidencialesvenezuela2024.com? Boud (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Note a user has opened this same discussion at Talk:Edmundo González Urrutia. Kingsif (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I am just seeing this as I am having such internet connectivity problems. I am pretty sure that any Wikipedia user can access that content via WP:TWL; let me doublecheck, and/or add quotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kingsif and Boud: MSN has it here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I can verify via friends that you can sign in to the database with your cedula and see your Mesa's results. Since cedulas are so widely publicized, it seems this data may as well all be made public. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

We have images of some on Wikimedia Commons, even. What a system. Kingsif (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Since they are signed by multiple representatives from the Mesa, it's hard to understand how fraud will prevail, and easy to see why so many governments are pressing for their release. They are all the evidence needed. Kingsif could you provide a cluestick to one on Commons? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Not everyone redacts when uploading to Commons:Category:Identity cards of Venezuela Kingsif (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you meant we had the Actas (tally sheets) on commons; you mean we have cedulas. Yep, you could grab any old cedula number and plug it in and see how the system works ... they don't ask you to state it's really you or anything like that, you only have to get through a captcha. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh! But now you mention it, we could absolutely put the sheets on Commons. If someone was to log in for every Mesa, and download all the sheet images, of course. Kingsif (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to have an image of just one acta to demonstrate what the database has ... can these instructions be used to get an image? I don't do images.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C-EwtoquNEU/?igsh=a2t5Y3F3cGw0Yms0 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Probably everyone has seen it by now in the results table, but now there's https://resultadosconvzla.com with per-municipality counts. There are also links to parroquia pages but a few random ones seem to get a 522 error code. Boud (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The municipality-level data (324 municipalities) are available here as of 24432 of the tally sheets (about 81.37%?) as a csv file, but these data are only usable for sanity checks (not for citation in our article), since they're technically WP:OR in the sense that a script is needed to collect the data from https://resultadosconvzla.com and rewrite it in csv format. Could be usable for Commons, though. Lower level data is available at https://resultadosconvzla.com down to individual parroquia. Boud (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The tally sheets are public

The 81% or so of the tally sheets collected by the opposition are public at https://resultadosconvzla.com , e.g. https://resultadosconvzla.com/mesa/15600/15467 where you can click on 'Acta' to see the scan of the tally sheet, or 'Mix' to see the ascii counts versus the scan simultaneously. The administrative hierarchy is estado - municipio - parroquia - centro - mesa. There seems to be one acta per mesa. Boud (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Faulty citations

Montezuma69 the citations (number 3 and 4) you provided in this edit for the content "In Mexico, the foreign secretariat released a statement calling for a transparent review including the electoral agency’s minutes and full reports;" are faulty. This needs repair now both here and at International reactions to the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Ditto for citation # 5; a 2017 source cannot verify the content about a joint agreement between Brazil, Colombia and Mexico in 2024.[19] It appears that the entire edit could be faulty, and it's now also over at the sub-article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate content

If someone has time to read through them and sort them out, these two sections are mostly duplicate content:

1. Issues in overseas voter registration
2. Obstruction of voting abroad

They aren't completely identical, so some teasing out of content is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Done for today; I don't think I've got it in me to do any more cleanup, but the article is still in quite miserable shape -- I'd like to be able to start building content now. No more edit conflicts for now, if anyone else wants to take on some cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Bare URLs I could not fill in tonight, bad internet, will go elsewhere tomorrow to finish them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Removed duplicate content, have not verified sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The poll results of the controversial firms aren't even shown

The article talks at length about numerous polling firms giving pro-Maduro results, mentioning them by name, arguing in detail that they are dubious, and even giving them credibility ratings, but then it doesn't actually show the results they gave anyway. Is it perhaps because of fear that somebody might believe them in spite of all the expressed reservations? Showing so little trust for the readers' ability to think for themselves seems patronising. If they can be sourced, they should be included. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

It was all about not while in there was they back. 2601:1C0:717E:4C0:9901:2DAB:50DA:7488 (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Large overwrite

CVDX regarding this edit, please take greater care and resolve edit conflicts without overwriting edits, particularly large ones. In that edit, you overwrote a previous very large and difficult edit, restoring 10 KB of text that was cleaned up in endorsments, so I have had to revert. I also notice you are edit warring over the "about" tag; please use the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Please also note that leads don't need to be cited, and Brazilian sources in a Spanish-language article for text that is already cited in English and Spanish aren't useful. Further, the arrest of Superlano is significant, but pales in comparison to Maduro, Cabello and Rodriguez calling for imprisonment of Machado and Gonzales, so can't be considered the most significant-- please see WP:ONUS and WP:BRD and discuss before reinstating content already deleted once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, I'm sorry, I was cleaning up the Polling section and messed up resolving the edit conflict. The about tag/Freddy Superlano thing was me trying but failing to fix it. However, I really think my version of the Polling section, which I worked for about an hour on, is an improvement to the article. How should I go about reinstating it? About the Portuguese-language sources, I believe the Poder360 source about Freddy is significant in that it includes video of the arrest, which is not included in the Spanish sources, but I might be wrong. Thanks for the patience. CVDX (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

CVDX I noticed you later fixed Superlano; I apologize for my shortness and for losing a bit of patience after such a large overwrite, when I have ongoing connectivity problems.

Could you put the Poder360 source down where Superlano is mentioned, in the Aftermath section? It's best to cite content in the body, rather than chunking up the lead (WP:LEADCITE).

I think am caught up now on the overwrite, and will next go back and see if I can recover your polling edits-- give me a moment.

Also, Dustfreeworld I do not support the addition of that About tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

No worries. I went ahead and reinstated my edits the best I could without affecting your work (before seeing your comment). Feel free to revert if there are any other problems :) I will add the source in the correct location. CVDX (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I see you already got it; will look in later. Also, take care that punctuation goes before refs (I've had to correct that several times). Sorry for the kerfuffle!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

okay, noted! CVDX (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

CVDX generally, I like your rewrite, but the uncited portions that resulted when citations were disconnected from text are taking a lot of time to check and clean up (still working); perhaps in the future when doing a large rewrite, you could put it in your sandbox and ask others to look in? Also, the Univision thing seems to have been a hack, unrelated to the fake pollsters. Still working, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm done there, CVDX your rewrite is much more clear than the previous; thanks!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Moved bulk to Polls in Venezuela, as much of it is general info, and we are approaching size limits here and will need the space as things evolve. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Polling tables

These polling tables are hideous, but worse, violate everything holy in MOS:ACCESS. Can we at least remove all but the main table ? Does anyone know how to make them more presentable? Is it possible to group "other" for everyone but the two main candidates? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I assume you mean the pre-election polls. The election itself is also a poll. All the tables look useful to me, and I don't see the justification in grouping all the 'other' candidates together. Election articles usually try to be fair in this way. As for beauty or ugliness, to me they just show that this is a complex topic, in which tables add depth beyond what is in the prose.

Regarding accessibility, I would guess that things like <br /> are not supposed to be used - MOS:NOBREAKS - though I haven't read the full guideline recently, but my impression in general is that templates and other wikimarkup has functions that handle accessibility for a variety of users with special needs. You could asking for volunteers at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility would might be willing to either edit directly or give advice. I generally only do basic things in tables. Boud (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but will hold off; the best volunteer there gave up a few years ago and left, and I'm unaware of other editors who care about accessibility issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

On the VPN issue

It seems that Boud is out ahead of Netblocks! (It's partly because of logging in to verify tally sheets?)

• https://www.techradar.com/pro/vpn/vpn-usage-in-venezuela-soars-in-the-aftermath-of-presidential-elections

And all language versions of Wikipedia are throttled in Venezuela. I'm not sure where to put this -- Censorship in Venezuela -- I don't have time. ReyHahn ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Checking of per-states table

For data collected from https://resultadosconvzla.com about 20 hours or so ago, the results-per-state table can be cross-checked against this csv table done with this script. I didn't check everything, but at least the values for Maduro and the participation fractions match. Individual states can be checked, e.g. by comparing Monagas to the live Monagas entry. The Blank/Null counts require elementary arithmetic. Boud (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2024

There's a part of the article that mentions polymarket as a pollster firm, it's not and the instance of polymarket just needs to be removed. 2601:2C1:8501:7160:403B:C992:2D05:F64D (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The source says:

Los sondeos de firmas de trayectoria en el entorno político venezolano, como Datanálisis, Datincorp, Delphos y Consultores 21, así como la incipiente Poder y Estrategia, del politólogo Ricardo Ríos, afirman que el postulado del antichavismo acumula más de 50 % de la intención de voto. Sin embargo, otras, como Hinterlaces y algunas prácticamente desconocidas en el mercado venezolano o de reciente data, entre ellas Polymarket, IMC Orientación y DataViva, concluyen que Maduro lidera sus encuestas con entre 54 % y 70 % de la preferencia. Otra, CECA Consultores, habla de un empate técnico inclinado ligeramente hacia la oposición.

Could you explain better the problem so we can seek a solution? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia the journalist seems to be confused. Polymarket is a prediction market platform, which uses bets to predict likelihoods of future events. Polymarket bettors predicted (Polymarket | Venezuela Presidential Election Winner) a 70-80% chance that Maduro would "win" (click on Maduro, then click on Graph), with the bets factoring in the chance of rigging the election (Polymarket on X: "@SOLWookie To say that Maduro is President is not to say that he earned or deserves it. People deserve to know who their President will be, even in cases of corruption." / X). It isn't a poll, so the journalist probably made an honest mistake Peter Njeim (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Peter Njeim (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• (Now I know :) Election Uncertainty In Venezuela Turns Polymarket Into An Oracle But WP:FORBESCON SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Overkill in the lead

WP:CITATIONOVERKILL in the lead: collected by poll watchers from a majority of polling centers.[6][11][12][13] Why do we need LaPatilla and others there, for example? What can be moved to the body? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Now that https://resultadosconvzla.com is available to people worldwide (those with good internet access) without having to be a registered Venezuelan voter (or know a registered voter's ID), the https://resultadospresidencialesvenezuela2024.com website is of weaker relevance, although in the specific case here, the OAS and La Patilla are sources that assert that resultadospresidencialesvenezuela2024.com is notable. Ideally, we should find a source that asserts that resultadosconvzla.com is notable - currently this is only "under the radar" knowledge discussed widely on public Wikipedia talk pages and social media but still a secret for the mainstream media. I propose dropping the OAS and resultadospresidencialesvenezuela2024.com links at that point in the lead, leaving the La Patilla and WSJ. Having a Latin-American source + WSJ is better than having a heart-of-Western-imperialism-and-the-industrial-military-complex source alone. <ref name="OAS_report_VE_pres_elec_DECO" /><ref name="opposition_results_website" /> are both repeat refs, so deleting them from the lead won't disrupt the body of the article. Boud (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

But with the chance of this article running ITN, I find it odd to see a marginally reliable source (after such an acrimonious RFC) featured in the lead. That is not a controversial statement, and leads don't need to be cited if content is cited in the body. Could we get it down to 0 or 1? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of La Patilla's RfC. I think that "released" tally sheets as opposed to "claimed to be in possession of" tally sheets is a huge difference. There are lots of sources saying that the opposition claims to have tally sheet scans, but few saying that it has actually made them available. In that case I propose keeping just the OAS ref in the lead (remove the website, La Patilla and shift WSJ to the body). The OAS is a solid source and it's OA - from a wide consensus among LAmerican states - and specifically says that there's a website with the tally sheets and gives the URL. The fact that the website is only for Venezuelan voters is less important. While leads don't have to have repeat sources, I think that until article content has settled to a solid consensus, it's safer to have repeat refs in the lead. Boud (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Works for me ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

More censorship to add

Putting this here, as having a hard time keeping up ... might be useful here, as well as at Censorship in Venezuela ... Wall Street Journal now blocked in Venezuela:

• https://www.infobae.com/venezuela/2024/08/02/la-columna-de-maria-corina-machado-que-provoco-que-el-regimen-de-nicolas-maduro-bloqueara-a-the-wall-street-journal-en-venezuela/

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The CNE results are fake: source needed to say the obvious

This is already circulating on the Fediverse, but it's clear in the official ALBA/CNE results CNE announced Nicolás Maduro Moros' victory with 51.20% (Q128211222) that the CNE counts are an extremely surprising coincidence:

echo 5150092 4445978 462704 | awk '{t=$1+$2+$3; printf("%.5f %.5f %.5f\n",100*$1/t,100*$2/t,100*$3/t)}'

gives

51.20000 44.20000 4.60000

If you increase to 6-digit precision you get

51.199997 44.199999 4.600004

This is reminiscent of Matthew Robertson's detection of faked data inOrgan harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China#Data on voluntary organ donations.

In any case, we need external WP:RS to comment on this. For the moment we are only allowed to do elementary arithmetic, which includes rounding. Boud (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

This is nothing new in chavismo elections; all sources who might comment already know how it works, and are probably waiting for the OAS statement today. It's surprising to see the Carter Center speak plainly for the first time, [20] [21][22] so others may be willing to provide, this time, the cited content you seek. The big change in this time versus others is that the PUD gathered the evidence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Some faked data are more equal than others. If we consider the chance of .x0000 in all three cases, that's a chance of about 1 in 10000 cubed, i.e. 1 in a trillion (10^{12}). Anyway, let's see if any WP:RS consider a 1 in a trillion coincidence to be suspicious. Boud (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Boud Hey, i don't work on statistics, but i passed the university course.

I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be "cubed". Since, if two of the results are exact, the third one would also be. So i think the chance of that coincidence should be squared.

Also, some of the percentages remain exact if you add one vote, but it doesn't if you add two. So i think we should assume it has the accuracy of two votes, not one. So, 1 in 5000

It still results in a ridiculous coincidence of one in 25 million, so the point still stands.

Yes, that might sound pedantic. But i think that, when using statistics to disprove a lie, we should give the liar the most room possible.

For the record: I'm not saying that the election is false. I'm saying that these numbers are very probably derived from a simple calculation and don't reflect the exact amount of votes. They might still be accurate, although rough, estimations. 2804:14D:8084:8DC9:A0E8:DFFE:B762:EA5 (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that my initial estimate was wrong. Depending on what interface you're using to read here, you might not have noticed my use of {{s}} to strike out my earlier calculation. I agree that the three numbers are constrained together, so 10^{-12} is wrong, and 10^{-8} is closer. The values for M and G, respectively, from 5145063 to 5155122, and from 4440949 to 4451008, would, depending on the specific method of rounding, would round to 51.2% and 44.2%. That makes 10059 and 10059 values that would have rounded to the stated values. Depending on the rounding method, these could be reduced by something like 1 or 2. So I would estimate slightly below 10^{-8}, something close to 9.88x10^{-9}.

If the vote counts are derived from the percentages, then that would imply that not only has the CNE published misleading numbers that were misinterpreted by most people as claims for the actual vote counts, but that it has not published any counts at all. Again, that last inference is something we can only use if it's WP:RS published. Boud (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I did some numerical checks with two different reasonable assumptions on the a priori statistical distributions from which the percentages of votes would have been drawn; these confirm that the probability is about 10^{-8}. This only qualifies for this talk page as a sanity check, of course. Boud (talk) 11:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Boud: Here and here you can find some media sources noting how the CNE results are clearly artificial and invented by the regime. You may use these sources to edit this article and comment on that abnormality. Potatín5 (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Excellent! (Edit to previous WP:OR estimate: one of the three values is constrained by the others, so the chance is 1 in 10^8, i.e. 1 in 100 million.) Boud (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Boud and here's a high quality English language source:

• Applebaum, Anne (31 July 2024). "Venezuela's Dictator Can't Even Lie Well". The Atlantic. Retrieved 31 July 2024. In the hours after the polls closed, much of the international media had refrained from stating the obvious. "BREAKING:," the Associated Press tweeted on Monday. "Venezuela's President Nicolás Maduro is declared the winner in the presidential election amid opposition claims of irregularities." But by Tuesday morning, it was absolutely clear that the election was not merely irregular or tainted or disputed: The election had been stolen.

You can request if at WP:RX, or subscribe to Apple News (well worth the monthly fee, it's where I'm getting almost everything), or email me and I'll send a copy. It comes as close as anything I've seen to calling it outright. Sorry I'm taking so long and so many edits on everything - my internet provider has gone bonkers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia I don't see where it mentions the decimal place zeros. The closest I see is sloppiness of the regime, which has so far not produced a full set of electoral statistics. Instead, Maduro has made ludicrous claims of victory, which doesn't mention the issue. Boud (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Boud, correct, The Atlantic does not address the decimal issue. Your section heading here is "need a source to say the obvious", which Applebaum does. And she gives yet another source that gathered the tally sheets and made them public, agreeing with PUD, disagreeing with CNE, which has made nothing public. On the decimal/precision issue, remember this is almost the same as what happened the first time the Carter Center turned a blind eye-- in past elections, it was no coincidence that a large number of voting tables had the exact same vote tally, as votes for the opposition were apparently capped at a set number. That the Carter Center has suddenly changed their tune on Venezuela is huge, even if they didn't quite "say the obvious". In the past, even though the statistical unlikelihood of so many voting tables having the exact same number of (low) votes against Maduro was known and stated,[23] that was ignored. "Carter is a man of peace" who didn't want to rock the boat? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Percentages

@Boud: i don't mind presenting the digits but i don't like that it is italic

@Number 57: could you provide a solution Braganza (talk) 10:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Braganza: If it's just the italics you object to, then we need a technical solution. Either add something to {{election results}}, which probably can't be done quickly, or if it's acceptable, maybe we could make a temporary fork with a quick hack while waiting for a proper solution? e.g. {{election results five decimal place percentages}}?

(Just to clarify to people who are not following this: I reverted this edit because the ALBA source CNE announced Nicolás Maduro Moros' victory with 51.20% (Q128211222) for the CNE values states these vote counts, and we have two sources, cited in the table footnote - How can looking at decimal places show fraud in Venezuela? (Q128211710) and The crude mathematical calculation in the official information increases suspicions about the manipulation of the election in Venezuela (Q128212016) - that state that the coincidence of the percentages being of the form ab.c0000%, de.f0000%, and g.h0000% is a notable characteristic of the official data.) Boud (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

i think multiple decimal place percentages might be needed, for example in the 2019 European Parliament election in Greece MeRA25 fell just 20ish votes below the threshold and is thus listed as 3.00% Braganza (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The multiple decimal places isn't needed in the results table – mentioning it in the prose above the results table is enough IMO. Number 57 15:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think the multiple decimal places are needed, as the statistically improbable precision is precisely why people are rejecting the CNE's results as fraudulent. Sceptre (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

They are there, directly above the table, where the improbability is explained. Number 57 21:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

This relates to a long-term problem discussed in the essay WP:ROGD. While readers should read the prose, some will just look at infoboxes or tables without reading further, and not bother looking at references or footnotes. Effectively, there is no clear consensus about whether or not we should take the risk of presenting unreliable OGD in a way in which there's a high risk of people taking the unreliable data seriously; in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was broad consensus to include the full range from reliable to unreliable data. Whatever consensus emerges here for this specific case will be one micro-datum for possible guidelines for the wider WP:ROGD question (which is going to be increasingly important as more open government data becomes available). Boud (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Section ordering

Should the Results section be listed first? David O. Johnson (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

NO; it moves ahead information that is not explained until later, and it's not "the most important information". We should follow a logical order, and not start talking about vote tallies that are now explained later. Also, if sections are re-arranged like this, that necessitates going back and rejigging a lot of wikilinks and moving text around to make the content flow. I can't see any really good reason for moving these sections.

(While we're here, similarly, the See also section should not be a farm of items that won't ever be added to the article, and Elon Musk is unlikely to be added to this article.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to list the Results later in the section, as it helps provide context. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

IMO our readers are clever enough to understand that results mean results ... and most of them come to the page for that.

I do agree we can provide more context. That can be done easily by adding one or two sentences at the start of the Results section (e.g. Maduro/CNE didn’t release detail tallies few days after the election while PUD released ...) Also the page is getting very long and I don't think it's a good idea to have everyone scroll a long way to get the information they want. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

We could split the Polling section into a new article. Maybe the Endorsements section, too. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m not saying that we want a short article ... --Dustfreeworld (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I already split the polling article to Polls in Venezuela; it has been shortened already by about 60%.

There are two logical problems with the chronology and emphasis in the structure (the idea to put results first) and the lead. The length is not a problem; the absence of understanding that neither the vote counts nor the decimals matter in the big picture is. I hope editors opining are reading sources beyond those freely available (there are scores of sources covering my point, but many are in Spanish) and in understanding that the significance here is not in the decimals or the results, neither of which will matter a wit to the outcome. The significance is in what was done to demonstrate to the world how the vote has always been manipulated-- recognizing, organizing, and taking the steps to assure that the actas would to be witnessed, saved, and made public. The significance is the process-- not the vote count-- which has historically been ignored and manipulated. There have always been statistical analyses showing fraud. Machado and team had the foresight to put an army of witnesses in place and gather all the actas, because statistical analyses have always shown issues with the tallies, and because there has never been true vote observers given full acesss, and the results won't matter a wit to whether Maduro will respect the vote-- that is the significant story, reiterated in source after source after source (while we have two sources that discuss the decimals, yet we're highlighting them in the lead, and placing the results before the important chronology). The forest is being missed for the trees here. The next step, already under way, is that Maduro will have his TSJ short-circuit the CNE process and review the votes in private, and then have them declare victory. Read the sources. [24] [25] and many many more. All of this was well known in advance, as it has been this way through many elections: the single difference this time is that the actas were preserved by an army of witnesses who are now being detained. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Mostly disagree. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Election articles are typically ordered chronologically; having the results section first would not make sense IMO. Number 57 23:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps won’t make sense to editors, but would make sense to most readers. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that is probably your personal preference, but I would avoid making claims about readers as a whole. As a reader of articles, I prefer to read articles that are in chronological order; I find biographies where editors split up details into topic rather than chronology harder to follow. Number 57 23:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it’s not my personal preference. I remember reading that studies showed that few people read the whole article. Most of them will just find the information they need by jumping to the section they want directly (through the headings listed in Contents), i.e., they don’t read “chronologically”. Perhaps you are one of those who are more patient I would say. Nvm. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Since that is true, then those who don't care to read the whole article can find the results whether they are at the top or bottom of the article. Those who do care to read the whole article need to get a solid grasp of the relevant story here, which is not to be found either in vote tallies or decimals. It was the journey, not the destination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

U.S. recognition of election result

Dustfreeworld could you explain the issue here? [26] The relevance that the US has spoken to who won the election, but has not formally recognized a president-elect while Brazil Colombia and Mexico attempt to negotiate with Maduro, is extreme, following on the Guiado affair, so we have to get this wording right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure I understand what you mean. However, IMO the Washington Post does not necessarily has the “right wording”. The right wording is:

"Given the overwhelming evidence, it is clear to the United States and, most importantly, to the Venezuelan people that Edmundo González Urrutia won the most votes in Venezuela’s July 28 presidential election ... We congratulate Edmundo González Urrutia on his successful campaign. Now is the time for the Venezuelan parties to begin discussions on a respectful, peaceful transition in accordance with Venezuelan electoral law and the wishes of the Venezuelan people. We fully support the process of re-establishing democratic norms in Venezuela and stand ready to consider ways to bolster it jointly with our international partners.” [27]

The Washington Post wording seems somewhat overkill (and are you sure that Blinken won’t recognize González as president-elect tomorrow/next week/next month/...?) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Other sources specifically say Blinken did not recognize him as president-elect. No, it is not overkill, as the US is being intentionally cautious here because of the Guaido precedent, and leaving room for the left-leaning presidents to negotiate. I will come back with the other sources, which will take me some time to re-locate. WAPO and Blinken's wording is very clear; he is speaking to who got the most votes and in diplomatic terms, he has specifically refrained from recognizing a president as Peru did. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m not saying WAPO is “wrong”. I’m just saying that we don’t need to stress that (esp. in Wikivoice) at this stage / at this point of time. Whatever. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

We have two very high quality sources (both paywalled, so I've added quotes), and it is highly relevant following on how the Guaido matter unfolded. [28] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

PS, it’s good that you notice that what we wrote may affect the report of media; and that’s one of the reasons why I think we shouldn’t stress that now. Blinken didn’t say A, Blinken didn’t say B, Blinken didn’t say many things, are we going to have all that in the article? Anyway, I really don’t enjoy the process of “defending every edit”. Excuse me but I’m out. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The WSJ article was posted at 12:41 am on 2 August; my post was at 02:12 UTC, which is 10:12 pm EST on 1 August, if I have the math right. At any rate, this issue is not rocket science so the same wording may be coincidental; it's standard diplomacy, as they are leaving time for regional leaders to negotiate (and apparently more occupied with other matters). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal[29] (which is paywalled, but says):

Blinken’s statement stopped short of calling González a president-elect, a diplomatic sleight of hand that leaves the possibility for Washington to step up its pressure further. But Blinken congratulated Gonzalez on a “successful campaign” and called for a “peaceful transition in accordance with Venezuelan electoral law and the wishes of the Venezuelan people.”

(And I note they published that after I wrote the "stopped short" words.) As WSJ says, this is a diplomatic sleight of hand, and an important one considering the Guaido history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

PS, I suppose I could be flattered that the WSJ seems to have picked up my paraphrasing of WAPO, and will write to them about that, ahem, when I find time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Washington Post (also paywalled):[30]

Blinken did not say the United States was recognizing González as Venezuela’s president.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Update US status

With The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post explicitly saying Blinken did not recognize Gonzalez as president-elect, we now have The Guardian saying he did.

• On Thursday night, the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, rejected the incumbent’s claims and recognised González as Venezuela’s president-elect. [31]

Feedback needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

KlayCax regarding this edit, The New York Times is paywalled and I can't see that article; could you please provide a quote to support your edit, to help understand why you preferenced their wording over both The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post? We are now saying something in WikiVoice that two high-quality sources disagree with. See discussion above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I have now accessed the NYT article, and it did not explicitly say that the US had declared Gonzalez president-elect. Like most of the other sources (except only The Guardian) it said that Blinken said Gonzalez had won the election.

The United States on Thursday night recognized Venezuela’s opposition presidential candidate, Edmundo González, as the winner of the country’s disputed election.

In diplomacy-speak, not the same thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

And The Guardian seems to be backing off on the wording of the earlier article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

And another: Reuters

The announcement from Washington did not go beyond congratulating him for a "successful campaign," the closest the U.S. has come since Sunday's contested election to recognizing Gonzalez as the OPEC nation's new leader.

We are promoting dubious information now in the lead in WikiVoice, and there has been no response from KlayCax; I am removing the claim from the lead.[32] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Terence Tao blogpost

Mathematician Terence Tao, considered one of the greatest living mathematicians (ex), just published a mathematical analysis (Bayesian statistics) on whether the election was manipulated. He supports the conclusion that the election was likely tampered with.

[33] It's a blog post, but it's from a credible figure, so possibly worth noting as an expert opinion.

I can't edit the article as an unconfirmed user, but recommend someone add it in. seefooddiet (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree with adding it per WP:SPS, but defer to Boud, who has written most of that content; separately, I am thinking we need a sub-article -- see #Article organization planning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Terry Tao is definitely a notable mathematician and his Bayesian analysis is something that I was vaguely thinking of doing, though I'm happy for other people like him to do most of the work. I'm looking at it ... Boud (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Heads up there's a typo: "occcurring" -> "occurring" seefooddiet (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Got that, thx, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

New CNE numbers?

In this edit and maybe some others, Braganza added info that apparently comes from this 404 URL, in which there is apparently a new (and bigger) set of numbers published by the CNE. Do we have any proper sources? 20:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I get the impression from Instagram that Anonymous has gov't sources under semi-permanent attack, so ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a Peruvian URL. Wayback can't get it either. Anonymous is surely not DDOS-ing all of the Latin-American media that could be seen as pro-Maduro... Boud (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Oops ... ignore me :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

If we don't have any sources, then we should revert. Boud (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Braganza: just adding another ping. Boud (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

"https://canaln.pe/internacionales/consejo-nacional-electoral-venezuela-ratifica-victoria-nicolas-maduro-n475552" not "https://canaln.pe/internacionales/internacionales/consejo-nacional-electoral-venezuela-ratifica-victoria-nicolas-maduro-n475552"

@Boud: Braganza (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

you had "/internacionales/internacionales" instead of "/internacionales" Braganza (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

That's what you put in the link. So let's see... Boud (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

for some reason the link is the footnote works for me, maybe some redirect thing? Braganza (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's fixed now :). Boud (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The CNE results are still fake: same indicator of fraud

It has been noticed that, in the newer CNE results published in 2 August, the ratio of valid and invalid/blank votes to the total number of votes cast gives percentages with two decimal places followed by three zeros. For example, the ratio of the 12,335,884 valid votes to the 12,386,669 total votes was 99.59000%, and in the case of the 50,785 invalid/blank votes, the percentage in relation to the total votes was 0.41000%. This is the same indicator that, as in the previous CNE official results, these have also been artificially manipulated. Potatín5 (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Potatín5 and Hegsareta: Canal N does not give the 50785 invalid/blank count. What source gives that? Boud (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, I found one ... Boud (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

As before: we can note the fact, but we can't say that it's unusual without an external source. Boud (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Endorsements

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)

PVT

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)

Nice work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 2 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 Wikipedia ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

CoryGlee see File:Edmundo González recognition map.svg ... but I do not advise using this map yet, as I think it misrepesents the US position (see #U.S. recognition of election result) -- all high-quality sources I have seen except one are quite clear that the US has not recognized Gonzalez as president, and the one that has (Guardian) has used that language in only one source and seems to be backing off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:05, 4 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 ...

1. File:2024 Venezuelan presidential election recognition map.svg already shows the countries that have recognized winners of the election, so
2. 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
3. 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 (Talk) 13:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

I agree with @SandyGeorgia. My reasons are different though. I do not advise using that map yet per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Polling expansion tag

User:Newslinger, per WP:SS and WP:SIZE, generalized polling content that was here was moved to Polls in Venezuela as this article is over 9,000 words; a hatnote is given at the top of the section. What else might be done to satisfy your concern? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:40, 3 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)

Hi SandyGeorgia, sorry about the unclear placement of the {{Expand language}} tag. My focus wasn't on general polling information, but on missing polling data pertaining to this specific election. es:Anexo:Encuestas y sondeos de intención de voto para las elecciones presidenciales de Venezuela de 2024#Candidatos postulados lists a number of polls (conducted by reliable pollsters) that are absent from this page. While the details can be split into a separate election-specific page (e.g. Opinion polling for the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election), I believe English Wikipedia's coverage of the polling data should be more comprehensive than what this article has now. — Newslinger talk 15:35, 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)

Electoral bulletin

Can we get a short explanation in the article of what an "electoral bulletin" is? It's mentioned without any context. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:54, 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:

• https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bulletin
• https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bulletin#:~:text=Synonyms%20of%20bulletin-,1,%3A%20periodical

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 Wikipedia 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):

• Corrales, Javier (3 July 2020). "Authoritarian survival: why Maduro hasn't fallen" (PDF). Journal of Democracy. 31 (3): 39–53. doi:10.1353/jod.2020.0044. S2CID 226738491. ProQuest 2429461768. Archived (PDF) from the original on 30 September 2023.

These are also helpful for the big picture:

• https://thehill.com/latino/4808636-venezuela-election-fraud-maduro-brazil-mexico-columbia-china/
• https://worldcrunch.com/world-affairs/venezuela-maduro-military

There are better articles than those, but mostly in Spanish, which makes editing here slow-going. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Decimal text duplicaton

Wilfredor the decimal issue was already in the article; Boud do you want to merge this content? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 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)

Boud ... Great ... I finished some trimming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 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,[34][35] 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)

Boud, queries and suggestions:

1. Re ===Sequences of zeros in the CNE values===, what would you think about "Decimal precision in the CNE values"?
2. There is other duplication in the "Results announced by the National Electoral Council (CNE)" section.
3. I think ===Other claims of fraud=== is actually material that belongs better back in the Reactions section, maybe with a different heading.
4. 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.

Nice work so far, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

Great work, Boud; I'll work on #3 if you'll work on #2 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Overlap still with reactions and fraud allegations

We have some fraud allegation reactions at the top of results (Levitsky, NYT), and others in reactions (Applebaum). Where do they fit best? I can see arguments for either way; on the one hand, they are Reactions, on the other hand, they provide a good preamble to Results. Where will readers be most likely to look for this info? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Moved Levitsky, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:00, 5 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.[15]", the [15] 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 = 0.0029

1.9971 - 1.99 = 0.0071

0.0029 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)

FOUND: https://elpais.com/america/2024-08-02/quien-gano-en-venezuela-los-datos-de-la-oposicion-son-mas-verificables-que-los-oficiales.html SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Boud and CVDX: El Pais is a better source and not full of pop-ups ... can we switch back now that it's found ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia Great find! They also do a great job of explaining what I was confused about there's even a table. we should add this source ASAP CVDX (talk) 18:53, 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)

No problem, thanks a lot for all the help in improving the article. CVDX (talk) 23:31, 5 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)

Pollster reliability

I am trying to determine the reliability of firms that have conducted polls for this election. The most comprehensive credibility evaluation available appears to be the July 2024 C-Informa evaluation published by Medianálisis, which identifies Mass Behavior Research and Hinterlaces as questionable. This evaluation is covered in Polls in Venezuela § Credibility of polling firms.

The Spanish Wikipedia article on opinion polling for the election, es:Anexo:Encuestas y sondeos de intención de voto para las elecciones presidenciales de Venezuela de 2024, includes Mass Behavior Research as reliable and excludes Hinterlaces as unreliable. However, that article cites the credibility scores within a Twitter (X) post by Encuestometro – a public web survey operated by the Votoscopio electoral monitoring organization. I'm not familiar with the reliability standards of Spanish Wikipedia, but these survey results are unreliable on English Wikipedia, as they constitute user-generated content.

Absent other credibility data, the Mass Behavior Research and Hinterlaces polls should be removed from this page, per the C-Informa/Medianálisis evaluation. — Newslinger talk 21:19, 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 Wikipedia 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)

Boud I've not yet scratched the surface ... none of what new editors are seeing in this election is new. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the context. After reviewing Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia, and can be used to determine the origin of questionable edits. — Newslinger talk 03:09, 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. — Newslinger talk 03:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

In most cases, it's much faster than WikiBlame. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 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. — Newslinger talk 21:19, 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. — Newslinger talk 21:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done for this one. Thanks for the comment, It was allready remove in anothers wikis Wilfredor (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Lead

@HandIsNotNookls: You made this major change to the WP:LEAD in which you:

• 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)

Thanks guys, I will wait to see if there are another error after change the graphic information Wilfredor (talk) 22:05, 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)

I removed the graphic waiting for the corrections Wilfredor (talk) 10:56, 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)

Mebane

I have done minimal cleanup on the addition of a Mebane primary source. The paper did not seem very polished, and we need to examine whether the WP:SPS threshold is met for this paper. I was out all day and am too tired to do more today, but I did at least remove the original research from the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 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 [that] 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)

And checking news.google, this is not promising. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 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 Wikipedia 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)

Good news; we now have an independent source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 6 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)

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)

Bare URLs, oopsie

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)

Done, thx CVDX! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Useful article from AP

There's a good article from the Associated Press here that talks about how the opposition kept the actas: [36]. David O. Johnson (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

We already have most of that here, but can add any missing bits and augment with the AP citation, since it is freely available while Miami Herald is not. Thanks, David O. Johnson; I can't get to this today, in case someone else can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Done here CVDX (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

"Observers"

Considering the restrictions on "observers" according to reliable sources, could we set some criteria on inclusion of entries like this one by Braganza? I hope we're not intending to include all 600+ of Maduro's guest list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

He is a minister and has an article, i think he is notable enough

i doubt all 600 are famous, is it known which countries they are from? Braganza (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Famous is not the same as notable; yes, it is likely that most of the 600 meet Wikipedia'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)

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)

I've seen it and replied with my thoughts. CVDX (talk) 21:46, 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)

Superlano content trimmed, moved to Freddy Superlano, a good bit left because we haven't heard the end of this, but we've seen how it has played out before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 9 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)

List to tackle

I was out all day and came home to find a long list to tackle.

1. Why are we using WP:VENEZUELANALYSIS (not a reliable source)? As explained in the RFC, they lie; why are we promoting that?

   Removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

2. The Carter Center content "not an independent source" is now in the article twice.

   In fact, the section "Audit of results" mostly duplicates "Transparency in vote reporting"

   Merged, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

3. The "Explanations" section appears actually to be "Turnout"

   Moved with results. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

4. 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?

   Trimmed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

5. When there are English-language sources, we should preference their use.

   Added, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

Done. So I added no new content today, and my list of sources to add approaches two dozen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 9 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)

Could you explain why, so we could at least add a brief note as to why that item is included? (See WP:SEEALSO.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 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 [then ruler] 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 Wikipedia 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)

Thanks Incognito melon. You read my mind :-) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Endorsements, tagging and ITN

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)