Talk:2024 Venezuelan presidential election

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 ([1]), 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 [2]: 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 [3]: 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 [4]: Officialism runs its own polls, such as Hinterlaces, which give Maduro the win with 54.2%.

El Pitazo [5]: 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 [6]: 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 [7]: [...] 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 [8] 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 [9]. 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,[10][11] [12] 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)

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)

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.[13] 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)

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)

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)

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, [14] [15][16] 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)

@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,[17] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)