Talk:2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum

Watch page

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)

Ira Weaver, please read WP:AGF and note that nowhere does it say that we assume that editors editing from an IP address are vandals or that you can suspend Wikipedia policy when IPs edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 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 [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)).

WOW! did I put that source up there!, it seems i put the wrong bbc article up, I was reffering to the final protest on November 29 or the 30. Wow, thanks for catching that, could you possibly link the article on the final Yes vote Demonstration?. However I never quoted or sourced some blog site, the unreliability-to say the least- of a source like that is obvious. Nor has there been any "interpretations" (An explanation or conceptualization, here meant in a clearly derogatory context, namely bias) of news articles, they are "what they say", not a page long quote but fact for fact, claim per claim. If not please bring it to attention (specifically) for immediate, unquestionable removal or, not. Ira Weaver 08:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[3]=Questionable source, [4]=blog, [5]=blog, [6]=blog, [7]=blog. This are not sources for an encyclopedia. Where does the Guardian say the masked gunmen were not chavistas? They just say "masked gunmen", so no interpretation.(Caracas1830 08:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC))

The so called questionable source is not so questionable in this article, they quote Reuters (as well as take the pictures from them) Information of the event, students quoted were those directly involved, and an un edited video was among the sources, not to mention that members of their own organization were present at the shooting therefore making it legitimate for them to discuss it and be counted as a reliable source. As for the blog sources, absolutely true, the section should be removed. Your absolutely right that the Gaurdian didnt report it, again, a mistake, I'll find the the other news group that did, (it has totaly slipped my mind), however that simply means they reported a proven false story, and should then be clearly refferred to as a claim and made clear of the real event, correction of the story. Ira Weaver 09:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't kept up with who is introducing the biased sources, but there are several still there. Organizations with an obvious pro-Chávez bias are not reliable sources and don't belong in the article. Please read WP:RS and WP:V and stick to reporting from independent sources or the article will be headed for a POV tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It is, the mistaken sources have been removed. There are two specific sources here which are from PSUV and the International Marxist Current. The first is not bias, its reporting what the 'intended' purpose of the vote by the people who enacted the vote. Its not intended to be bias, nor is it controversial to say that the purpose of the election is to implement a form of socialism, therefore its not an "unreliable source" the second source by IMC I explained in LENGTH why it is legitimate in the context, please read the section in the talk page. Ira Weaver 19:52, 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.224.43 (talk • contribs) 18:02, November 30, 2007 UTC (UTC)

IP, please sign your talk page entries by entering four tildes (~~~~) after your post. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ira Weaver (talk • contribs) 14:11, 1 December 2007 UTC (UTC)

"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)

Many of the citations given are not to reliable sources; once the article is reliably sourced per WP:RS and WP:V to independent sources with a reputation for editorial oversight and factchecking, tags can be removed with consensus from other editors. The article is also in and out of a very biased state, with one-sided reporting of issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It is, the mistaken sources have been removed. There are two specific sources here which are from PSUV and the International Marxist Current. The first is not bias, its reporting what the 'intended' purpose of the vote by the people who enacted the vote. Its not intended to be bias, nor is it controversial to say that the purpose of the election is to implement a form of socialism, therefore its not an "unreliable source" the second source by IMC I explained in LENGTH why it is legitimate in the context, please read the section in the talk page. Ira Weaver 19:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Massive changes without reason

Alright, among some of the perplexing things done were these.

In a meeting with trade unionists on November 22 from Union Bolivariana de Trabajadores (UBT), Fuerza Bolivariana de Trabajadores (FBT) and Fuerza Socialista (FS) as well as student activists, Hugo Chavez stated that 46% of the 2008 budget will be allocated to social projects and infrastructure, with 5% of it being directed by community councils[unreliable source?][7].

The source for the meeting was "International Marxist Current". The purpose for the source were 1) that the meeting occured, 2) that Chavez had been quoted as saying that. It was deemed an "unreliable source", This would mean that the source is unreliable in proving that the meeting existed, and 2) that the source is unreliable in its quote. To prove the event HAPPENED, heres a picture of workers and students waiting to enter the Teresa Carreno Theatre where the meeting took place [8], clearly wearing shirts in support of the SI vote, and heres a picture of the front of the theatre on an empty day [9]. As for the actual statement, transcripts of most of Hugo Chavez' speeches are available at the PSUV website (unless their too unreliable to quote there leader, which means removing half the content on the 2008 US presidential election for their unreliable sources and quotes).

Next this replaced the previous paragraph

In November 2007, demonstrations arose in Caracas and six other cities over the proposed constitutional changes. The number of people demonstrating reached an estimated 80,000. Masked gunmen opened fire on students returning from the march to the Central University of Venezuela. At least eight people were injured including one by gunfire. Government officials said the media was partly to blame for inciting discontent and disorder..

Note how the editor didnt seem to care for a source for "demonstrations arose in Caracas and six other cities " nor for the 80,000 marchers estimate, nor continued to explain the event with the masked gunmen beyond insinuating that Chavez goons attacked innocent protestors, rather than what actually, and now universally excepted by all independant media outlets, happened. Th purpose was simple and undeniable, to perpetuate a FALSE story.

During the closing rally of the campaign Chávez warned against a so called Operation Pliers by the CIA. He announced that if this operation was activated he will cut all oil shipments to the US. US officials have called this accusations ridiculous..

This simply omits too much and is written entirely with a POV mindset. "against a so called Operation Pliers" is applicable, however he, his government, state TV, and some news outlets reported this by atleast the 26 of November, not the 30 (the day of the last march). And the second sentance is what you would call "interpretation" in a dergatory sense, the BBC article makes no mention of Operation Pliers (effectively putting the statements out of context). In the last sentance of the paragraph I wrote the point much more neutrally with no "interpretation".

Note how I havent riddled other sources as one way or the other unacceptable, or misrepresented an event, or flagged a section innapropriately to the Admin (thus wasting time) to get a political agenda out, I've done so out of curtousy and respect, a respect i hope is granted in turn by doing things through proper community discussion, rather than anonomously, quickly, and agenda driven. None of these edits were done with reasons and discussion, so, for any continued mass edits, I will edit them back unless proper and detailed reasons are given in the talk page. Ira Weaver 09:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The text you are mentioning is already covered in the article about the demonstrations and isn't particularly relevant here. It's also one-sided reporting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)