Talk:2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum

There Should be a good watch on this page for Venezuela agents editing it for thier dictator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.116.58 (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Discuss reasons for deletion and edits

Someone deleted the last two paragraphs, and edited the one on opposition protests to make it absolutely ideological over factual. I have no problems with edits if they are done to make the article more neutral, no one likes going to wikipedia to read ideologically ridden drivle passed off as information, much less news. If there are any additions please note here why, and if any deletions do so as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ira Weaver (talk • contribs) 02:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Since those deleting and re editing this page continue to do so anonomously and without reason I'll assume its vandalism. The last two paragraphs are nuetral, based on facts and are absolutely directly relavent to the election. There is nothing POV about putting them up, or maybe I'm wrong and they violate some rule of sorts, in which case make clear the purpose and reason.Ira Weaver 15:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Read this wikipedia policy from WP:Sources "Questionable sources-Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." If the memo is true, explain this [1]. Caracas1830 01:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad that you've, re-worked your own comment, again. There is no questionable sources, the sources used (with one perticular exception) are not extremist, opinion based, or rumor mills, explain in detail how they are (as many of the sources as you can would shed some light to your position). The matter of sources I think has largely been resolved, and I've found quite a few that are neither socialist, nor Chavez-sypathetic, who have run the story, though maybe not CNN or FOX, t6hey constitute being independant sources. I have used the PSUV wbsite to site the "intentions and purposes" of the referendum to get the official take on the reason for the vote, so in this context i beleive it justifiable to have them as a source for that statement, since its not an advocation but rather their reason for the purpose for the referendum. The sources for Operacion Tenaza are about the same topic (operacion tenaza) but are not simply repeating the same article.

And I dont understand what your source is supposed to mean, why that refutes the memo 'claim', many news stations (like bbc, cnn, msnbc, etc.) have reported the government reactions but link the context innacurately, insinuating a possible early power grab (in the case of bbc), pointless rhetoric, anything but the actual document. If you can find a mention in the major international press about the supposed operation it should be included, however even that wouldnt neccesarily prove anything. By the way, if I seem condescending or beligerant in any way it was unintentional, and apoligize, these matters like politics and religion get people riled up and ruin these talk pages, and i'm begining to hear these talk pages on chavez related topics get more and more hate filled and ideological. Lets be done with all thise rhetoric and keep to respectful discussion. Ira Weaver 01:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A source means news from a reputable news agency referring to the correct event. In order to write an encyclopedic article one cannot make the mistake of using a source from the 2006 Presidential election [2] to talk about the referendum or use sources that quote blogs or are questionable because they are against Wikipedia policy. One must read carefully the articles from reputable news agencies and stick to what they say. No interpretation. (Caracas1830 06:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)).

Read this wikipedia policy from WP:Sources "Questionable sources-Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." If the memo is true, explain this [3]. Caracas1830 01:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad that you've, re-worked your own comment, again. There is no questionable sources, the sources used (with one perticular exception) are not extremist, opinion based, or rumor mills, explain in detail how they are please(as many of the sources as you can would shed some light to your position). Ira Weaver 07:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Last Paragraph

That section is ridiculous. The source they take it from is completely biased in favor of Chavez and his reforms. The accusations are very similar to Chavez's claims that the US was involved in the 2002 coup attempt of which he could offer no proof other than rhetoric. If another independent source can be found to verify the existence of such a plot by the CIA than it should be included but for now it should not. This could very well be someone trying to add this in since now there is a chance Chavez could lose the referendum and they want to blame it on the CIA. Is that the case, who knows? But for now with independent verification of these claims they should be removed.

Eva Golinger is the person who broke the story, she isnt a member of PSUV or the bolivarian movement, she's a respected lawyer and journalist, she broke the story of the connection between the US and the Coup plotters in 2002 through the National Endownment for Democracy, and has actively pursued the matter of US involvment in Venezuela, it would only be natural that she would be the one to break this story to the non-Venezuelan press. I dont feel this should be dismissed out of hand because of a deep seeded conviction by some that anyone not involved or sympathetic to the opposition are liers and propagandists. Statements, stories, and facts all over Venezuelan related pages are linked to sources like Globovision, National Review, The Wall Street Journal, the U.S. State Department, etc. In all fairness you wouldnt advocate removing whole sections from the Iraq War because the sole references were from the US State Department or organizations and people 'percieved to be sympathetic' to the U.S., the same I would imagine applies here . It sure isnt ethical to omit the existence of the 'claim' outright for these excuses either. We dont, and should not, simply act to omit them, I can see maybe reworking a few sentences to use the term "claim" though even this would be a POV response since the criteria you ask for is quite uneven, it seems to be considered a legitemate event it need be covered by major mainstream media outlets, the kind that have a vested interest in misinforming, on clearly ideological grounds. So I would agree to add to the paragraph somewthing along the lines of "no major media outlets have discussed the claim" or "the claim remains to be verified by mainstream news agencies both in Venezuela and the international press". Ira Weaver 11:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph had some few errors, and they were corrected. I’ve added a link to the proposed intent of the constitutional changes, the website to PSUV and its explaination for the the reforms, it is in no way POV to state their proposed intent. On the paragraph about the meeting with trade unionists, I’ve added the link to the information, and clarified the sentence. Note, the International Marxist Tendancy and its Venezuelan affiliate covered the event.

I’ve re-attached the full paragraph on the demonstrations as well as added information on the latest demostrations. My key reasons for doing this are: The information is completely relavent, directly related and un-ideological. The information is uncontroversial, they are facts, and placed here to give the full scope of the run up to the election, just as any other election has detailed information on the run up to those election (see for example Sierra Leonean general election, 2007, Greek legislative election, 2007, Australian federal election, 2007) and should then not be ommited. devoting a whole separate page to these demonstrations seems to me unneccesary since they are a direct extension of this event., it should be discussed if the page 2007 Venezuelan demonstrations should be deleted.

I have re-instated the last paragraph relating to the ‘claimed’ CIA memo, removed near all the previous sources, linked independent news sources NOT tied to PSUV nor ideological. However I havent been able to get a hold of how to add them properly to the “references” section, can anyone help do this? Ira Weaver 14:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If anyone have any further greivences about the edits, the page or the sources please refer first to the Talk Page here state clearly what greivances then edit.

"The article Needs Additional Citations for Verification" Banner

Who keeps trying to throw red flags anonomously? The page has plenty of independant citations (sources) on it, I see no reason to discredit the reliability, i.e. factual accuracy of the page. Why exactly is that banner up, how would you go about requesting its removal? Ira Weaver 07:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)