Talk:2018 Venezuelan presidential election

Irregularities

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

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

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

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

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

Colors

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

Campaign

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

NGOs

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

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

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

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

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

Quotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Home state

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

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

Article size

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

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

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

Spanish article

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

Independent turnout numbers

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

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

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

Range of estimates

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

• 17.32% (independent est.)

• 25.8% (opposition estimates)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong map

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

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

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

Sources in the lede

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

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

United Nations in lede

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

Add North Korea to countries recognizing the elections on the map

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

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

Misleading map

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

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

@Wingwraith: First, stop the harassment.

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

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

Telesur

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Map

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

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

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

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

Images

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

Falcon

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

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

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

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

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

Legislative councils

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

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

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

Reactions vs. Recognition sections

Creating a new section here to discuss this.

The reaction is different from recognition in these ways:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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