Talk:2012 Venezuelan presidential election

BLP vio

There is an entire paragraph of deragotory information in this article, cited to state-run or non-reliable sources that don't rise to the level of sourcing demanded for living persons. I have removed the text once, it was reinstated, so I've raised the concern at WP:BLPN (where no one has responded). Short of consensus to include poorly sourced deragotory information, WP:BLP requires that we remove the poorly sourced text. We don't use pro-Chavez and state-sponsored websites to make deragotory statements about an opposing candidate, and particularly not when we have multiple accounts for high quality sources. I can find nothing at primicias24.com to indicate reliability or editorial oversight, RNV is state-owned and controlled and Venezuelanalysis.com is a pro-Chavez website, discussed several times at the Reliable sources noticeboard as reliable to state what Chavez's policies are, but not for BLPs-- certainly not when it is used to make claims of a coverup or threats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason to fork this issue from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#BLP issues in Venezuela.2FChavez opposition candidates in election articles, a thread that's been open less than 24 hours? By the way, can you quote the exact text you repeatedly say contains "derogatory" information? Rd232 ^talk 19:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You're asking why I'm raising on article talk an issue about text that is in the article still, when the default position for BLP is to remove it? You haven't gained consensus for that text but you haven't removed it; what is the question? The text in question is clearly tagged, where non-reliable and partisan sources are claiming threats and a coverup-- text not supported by the higher quality, reliable, independent sources. It's clearly marked, so I don't understand your question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Bloomberg source in article: "Silva said Capriles had used his influence to force police to drop indecency charges stemming from the incident." Or does the fact that Bloomberg said this disqualify it as a reliable source? Rd232 ^talk 08:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The question is what information is "derogatory"? Using "derogatory" to refer to information seems like an attempt to claim it's libelous without saying so... which puts you in conflict with WP:V by declaring that you can judge the truth of the matter better than the sources. But anyway, the question is, how is it not "derogatory" to report the central allegation of an indecency incident and coverup of it, but it is derogatory to explain the source of those allegations? The way you've rewritten the issue it's basically a coatrack to attack Silva, as if he was the source of the allegations not the policeman. How is that not a BLP violation? Rd232 ^talk 13:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I've never claimed to be a great writer (I aim for brevity to avoid giving UNDUE weight to any given issue-- were that not the case, I'd be expanding this article significantly per the latest CNN report of possible successors to Chavez, and I don't think that would be helpful-- YMMV): if you think it reads like a coatrack now, then feel free to give it a try using the independent, third-party, reliable sources in English that we have (there are at least three). Claims made by this individual policeman have not been covered by independent sources and you know they can't be covered by private Venezuelan media due to the freedom of the press issues. Should you decide to reword from reliable sources required per BLP, please remember that when we quote multiple full sentences, instead of phrases, we have to use blockquote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"you know they can't be covered by private Venezuelan media due to the freedom of the press issues" - ROTLFMAO. Really? The private media can insult Chavez on a daily basis but not report details of an opposition candidate being accused of malfeasance in office? What a strange world we live in, eh. Basically, lots more attempt to distract from the fact that you can't explain how the additional details of the allegations are a BLP vio, or how RNV is not a reliable source for what RNV says. Rd232 ^talk 15:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Staying on topic and avoiding sarcasm will be helpful; you know where to find and discuss the freedom of the press issues and the Law of Social Responsibility. In this article, WP:BLP applies to living individuals; specific claims made by this policeman have not been reported in independent sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Does WP:BLP apply to Mario Silva? Yes or no? Rd232 ^talk 15:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Changed meaning?

I'm not seeing the changed meaning in this edit; please explain. Since my prose stinks (and if you don't mind me saying it, yours isn't much better), we both tend towards overquoting, and I'm relieved when an editor who can write rephrases. What is wrong with the rephrasing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. Apart from the near-nonsensical "to generate this show", it probably doesn't really matter in the scheme of things whether we paraphrase or quote direct there, but I was curious at what seemed like pointless tinkering in the first place, so I've already asked for clarification over on Rd232's talk page (seemed like too minor an issue to bring up here). Steve ^T • C 20:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks ... I just don't want you to think it's not appreciated since I tend to overquote and Rd232 and I have discussed his paraphrasing several times-- any quoting we can reduce is a good thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

1. "the group's apparent level of organization" is a garbling of "it was an armed and organized group...."; "apparent level" doesn't mean anything without some detail that isn't given.
2. "[Capriles' bodyguards were] to blame for starting the shooting" is not the same as "were the ones to start shooting". It's slightly ambiguous as to who started shooting (maybe the bodyguards did something to provoke the shooters?), and if read as saying that the bodyguards did shoot first, it can be read as implying that somebody is saying they're not to blame for starting it (eg they were acting reasonably in shooting first). It's a mess of additional ambiguity the original statement doesn't have.
3. "to generate this show" - is slightly awkward but perfectly clear, and clarifies the motive in Aissami's version of events, where the red-shirted ones were opposition supporters creating an incident to make the government look bad.

Rd232 ^talk 07:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

List-defined references

The combination of extensive footnoting and use of cite templates renders wikitext impenetrable. List-defined references (footnotes defined in the References section) is the solution. I've done the intro so far. Rd232 ^talk 13:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CITEVAR-- do not change citation style without consensus. I do not like working with list-defined references as they separate sources from text and make editing harder. I am opposed to changing the citation style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic text on Zionism

Why is this text in the article? There is no connection made to the Capriles/election issue, and if there is one, is it original research?

The article also said "The rational and open fight against poverty, racism and anti-Semitism makes no sense if it is not directed against Zionism and capitalism, which represent 90 percent of the poverty in the world, the imperial wars, death and misery of millions of people, and the growing threat of extinction of all species on the planet and the planet itself."[26]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Required for WP:NPOV to show the article was about Zionism, not Jews. (And how the heck can it be original research?? It's sourced to the ADL translation for the original article.) Rd232 ^talk 15:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, if it's not clear to me that the text is there to show it's about "Zionism not Jews", I'm not sure how it's clear to others, so unless the connection is made by reliable sources, we don't draw our own conclusions from primary sources (that's called original research). Do reliable sources make the connection you're making? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the ADL article specifically says "The article accuses Venezuelan candidate Henrique Capriles García of being part of the Jewish cabal and repeats many classic anti-Semitic themes." You can't then use the translated article to show that it is not anti-Semitic.JoelWhy (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That's what I suspected from memory, but I hadn't had time to check. If this is the case, the relevance of that text is hard to understand. If the purpose is to claim the attack wasn't anti-semitic, that needs to come from a reliable source. Otherwise original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Quoting the article itself can't be original research. Or is this another case where quoting X in order show what X says is not acceptable because X is not a reliable source for what X says? Rd232 ^talk 16:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The accusation of what the article says in the opinion of a lobby group is already there. Quoting the article itself is very relevant - or does WP:NPOV not matter any more? Rd232 ^talk 16:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, (after edit conflict with RD) I've now checked the Wall Street Journal text (which is behind a paywall), and it makes an explicit connection as:

"This is our enemy, the Zionism that Capriles today represents," the article says. "Zionism, along with capitalism, are responsible for "90% of world poverty and imperialist wars."

Perhaps that quote should be used instead, so we aren't relying on a primary source to draw a conclusion. The Bloomberg source says:

An article published Feb. 13 on the website of Radio Nacional, titled "The Enemy is Zionism," linked Capriles with the Jewish nationalist movement because of a meeting he held with members of the Confederation of Israeli Associations of Venezuela, the main umbrella group of the country’s 12,000- strong Jewish community.

That's a directly sourced connection to the Jewish community. And The Huffington Post source directly connects it to anti-semitism: [1] Rd, what you suggest is original research (and you have explicitly supported exclusion of same from the Chavez article on other occassions): there's some sourced wording above that should help, but please balance it per all reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The WSJ quote "Zionism, along with capitalism" is OK (could replace part of the direct quote from the article). But excluding the "fight against poverty, racism and anti-Semitism" violates WP:NPOV. It's part of what the article is saying, and it doesn't fit the "anti-semitic article" story, which is why the western media left it out; just as they left out the explanation for mentioning the CAIV, which is its commitment to Zionism. It's so much easier to vilify a document when you refuse to read it and accept at face value what political opponents say about it! Rd232 ^talk 17:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Rd, you must realize you are advocating for original research, based on your own personal opinions ("which is why the western media left it out"). If the sources don't cover it, they don't cover it; Wikipedia text is based on WP:V and avoids WP:OR. Those are core policies. You have routinely supported the exclusion of US State Department and human rights organization primary sources on the entire Chavez/Venezuela suite of articles (they are routinely excised there unless mentioned by independent sources), yet you argue for them here. The double standard is a concern; if you want to use primary sources here, will you argue for their inclusion in other Venezuela/Chavez articles? I took the time to find sourced text that would help say what you want to say, and that's the best we can do, unless other sources surface (I haven't had time to search for others). Please don't look a gift horse in the mouth-- I don't have unlimited time to do the research to try to help you out.

As to your claim about "western media", you might also reflect on the irony of sources as diverse as the WSJ (right) and The Huffington Post (left) saying the same thing in this case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Please look up WP:NOR. And yes it's from a secondary source translation of a primary source, but that's not at all the same as picking up a random primary source to make a point an editor wants to make: this is a primary source which is a source of controversy, and it's entirely legitimate to look at the source itself and not insist only on filtering the source through secondary interpretations by others who have their own agenda. And let's look at who wrote the Huffington Post piece: that's Christopher Toothaker, the AP journalist responsible for a report criticised here and here (which is just from a quick search, I doubt that's the only problem with his reporting). Rd232 ^talk 23:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No surpises there (criticized by Venezuelanalysis.com). OK, Rd we have a double standard here. Any use of primary sources critical of Chavez is routinely excised from Chavez/Venezuela articles unless covered by secondary sources, and any reporting in certain papers is also excised as "opinion", while almost all of Venezuelanalysis.com opinion is cited as fact and now we want to use a primary source here to create original research. Hmmmm ... how to resolve this double standard? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No surprise that you ignore facts when they come from a source you disapprove of. I've already explained that editors picking primary sources is a problem, but when a primary source has already been raised to prominence by secondary sources such that it's covered in an article, then we can certainly use the primary source in question to supplement the secondary sources, especially when those secondary sources are not fully representing what the primary source says. Did you in fact bother to look up WP:OR? Rd232 ^talk 00:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Capriles 2000 incident

Some sources have been removed from the article and from this talk page. Here is another:

Pink News: [2]: "Talk-show host Mario Silva announced on his radio programme The Razor Blade a few weeks ago that in 2000, Mr Capriles was found by policeman Jesús Teodoro Hernández engaged in a sexual act with another man in a public route in his car. At the time Capriles was mayor of Baruta, a position which he then allegedly used to cover up the event, avoid charges and have the policeman in question subjected to a disciplinary process.

Mr Hernandez provided the above information, claiming that he did so to make the story public and clear his name to halt the threats he’d been receiving. Mr Silva maintains he was covering the story in order to show how power is “used” and how “filthy power is”. He added that it had “nothing to do with the condition of Capriles’ sexuality”.

There is no suggestion that President Chavez has any connection to the smear campaign, although it has been suggested those who conducted it were Chavez supporters. It seems however, that the belief of those followers that allegations of homosexuality would deter people from voting for Capriles were wrong."

Rd232 ^talk 07:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I have never encountered that site, and this doesn't speak to the things we usually look for vis reliability (journalistic credentials, editorial oversight, fact checking, staff, etc.) so I suggest raising it at BLPN or RSN to see if anyone is familiar with the site in terms of high quality sourcing requirements for BLP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

In RSN archives: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 47#Pink_News. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

From RSN archive: "Is Pink News generally reliable? Yes. They have an editor." Rd232 ^talk 09:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Mario Silva himself is well known to be a dirty propagandist for Chávez, so never mind Pink News. If it comes from Mr Silva it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, period. Dr Ulf Erlingsson (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Platforms

I've done all I can for today, but I barely started a Platform section that needs to be expanded. I parked some sources there in preliminary text, including a FactBox page from Reuters that can be used to expand Capriles' platform, but I don't have anything similar for Chavez. Sick battery, computer keeps dying mid-post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Opinion Polling

I think it's nice to have this polling section, but I was curious whether anyone has insight into the polling companies. Polling is certainly not a pinpoint-accurate, hard science, but it is virtually unfathomable that two polls conducted in the same month would show such tremendous discrepancies in the same month (i.e. VOP showing Chavez with a 40+ point lead, while Predigmática and FDP Consultores showing his opponent with between a 2 - 6 point lead. (Say what you will about pollsters, but just look back at the past few U.S. elections -- even when polls have ended up being wrong, they are wrong to substantially smaller degrees than the discrepancies here.) So, anyone know anything about these polling groups? Is VOP a government agency? Is Predigmatica a right-wing organization? There's got to be something going one with at least one of these polls which may be noteworthy w/in the article (if not sufficiently biased to warrant exclusion.)JoelWhy (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Never heard of any of them - and it's hard to find info about them. See Venezuelan_parliamentary_election,_2010#Opinion_polls for comparison. Rd232 ^talk 08:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason they differ so wildly is not that the public opinion shifts rapidly, but that they suffer from various degrees of (intentional) flaw. It has been empirically proven that many Venezuelans will say that they intend to vote for Chávez to a pollster, even though they really intend to vote for the opposition. This has been dubbed the "fear factor", and it is believed to approach 20% in this election (if you wonder why it exists, remember the Lista Tascón). Un-biased polls have Capriles as the front runner by about 8%. Dr Ulf Erlingsson (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of venturing further into WP:NOTFORUM territory: Venezuelan_parliamentary_election,_2010#Opinion_polls shows Datanálisis (52/48) closest to the final outcome (48/47). Their latest 2012 poll gives Chavez a 13-point lead, so unless the "fear factor" has dramatically increased from 2010 to 2012, it's hard to see Capriles as front runner there. Rd232 ^talk 19:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This no-name polling is getting silly. Globovision doesn't even know if it's FPD Consultores or JDP [3]. "Servi Mercadeo" [4], appears to be headed by a mining engineer based in New York [5]. Hart-McInturff is at least two known US pollsters, Peter D. Hart and Bill McInturff. But there is no "Hart-McInturff" company I can find, and Hart's company (Hart Associates) doesn't seem to have done any work outside the US, whilst McInturff's Public Opinion Strategies does claim a track record of foreign research, but is considered "the leading Republican polling company." [6]. So who actually did the poll? Really... Hart/McInturff aside, I'm starting to think these no-names may just be random consulting outfits that reckon concocting some sort of a poll and feeding it to a hungry press is a fantastic promotional tool! Rd232 ^talk 07:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI the LAHT article at issue in recent edits ([7]) is undated (why would you do that as a news site? well they do, and just stick today's date at the top), but in the article refers to Consultores 21's survey done in March. Rd232 ^talk 12:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Capriles on violence against journalists

Can anyone find a better source for this? "In response Capriles said he 'rejected' violence but that some people in the public media had 'provoked' his followers in order to be able to accuse him of violence." Venezuela Analysis is little more than a pro-Chavez propaganda publisher. Do we have the exact quote from Capriles?JoelWhy (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I have searched news sites and can find no mention whatsoever of these incidents in any third-party independent sources. [8] I am on vacation and have limited time to search, and it could be a situation where I don't know the correct key words to search on, but unless mention of these incidents by a source independent from Chavez can be found, this text does not belong in the article, and is yet another BLP breach. We cannot be making deragotory and speculative statements about a candidate based on a source that is affiliated with the opposing candidate-- these are incidents which are not reported in independent media and are furthermore given UNDUE weight. Unless independent BLP-conforming sources are found for deragotory information about a candidate, the text should be deleted as not only a BLP vio, but also UNDUE. Also, is there a reason for not correcting the typo? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"found no mention whatsoever" - well clearly you didn't try hard enough; I've added some sources. As for independence and bias - let's not argue that every time we discuss including something (...are the opposition-supporting Venezuelan and international media "independent" of Capriles?) Rd232 ^talk 08:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You didn't provide any additional sources for Capriles' response, which is what I was asking about. I read a couple of articles talking about violence against journalists, and I found one that said Capriles rejected the use of violence. I did not, however, see anything where he qualified this remark by saying they were provoked. I would like to see the quote, and I believe context matters in a situation like this.JoelWhy (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find any additional sources for the quote (it was probably translated by Venezuelanalysis, and finding the original quote when it's in another language is always hard). I don't see how the quote is at all controversial though - the events clearly happened, so using a defence of provocation is totally what you'd expect; and rejecting violence is equally what you'd expect. Removing the quote risks creating a BLP violation by failing to include Capriles' rejection of violence. Rd232 ^talk 13:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I found an article from a reputable source where he rejects the violence. I have not found anything related to the "but that some people in the public media had 'provoked' his followers" part of his statement. So, the first part can remain (I'll go find the source again) but we'll need another source for the second part.JoelWhy (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

On the credibility of numbers

June 10, 2012, Henrique Capriles Radonski led a rally in Caracas. Some media outlets report that there were "thousands". Reuters and others report "tens of thousands". Miami Herald reports "hundreds of thousands". Consultants tasked with doing an estimate came up with 950,000 to 1,110,000. Yet our friend Rd232 considers the latter not to be credible because "it is an order of magnitude higher than the other estimates". That is not how seeking the truth works. One doesn't take the average between the truth and the lie. Nor does one take the most often cited figure. One has to evaluate the sources and have an understanding of how the value is being manipulated, so that one can make an informed guess. Media will never raise a value that they have heard, but they may lower it. The "tens of thousands" were thus reported before the "thousands", the latter being a cautious rendition of the former. Moreover, we can look at photos from the event to see which is the highest number that may be realistic. There were 8 gathering points, and a handful of different ways to get into the center. A colleague was standing at one of them for 2.5 hours counting the crowd walking by, and he estimated that in that time some 50,000 persons passed him towards the center. Combined with what the photographs show, it is absolutely certain that as a minimum, the crowd was in the hundreds of thousands range. As a minimum.

See also my comment above under opinion polls.

The point is that when editing this article you cannot treat Venezuela as a democracy. It is an authoritarian regime (and so say even former Chávez supporters, even communists). They use intimidation, the threat of brute force, election fraud, and psy-ops to hold on to power. The reader of this article is not served by treating the subject as if it was a normal democratic election. Dr Ulf Erlingsson (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

See WP:AGF and WP:V and WP:OR. Also I never said the highest, completely unsourced estimate was not "credible" [that was your word, describing the Miami Herald as more credible than AP and Reuters...], I merely said it was much higher than the other estimates (from reliable sources). Now, you first added the march claiming a million+ relying on a Globovision source saying thousands; I added Reuters and AP and made it tens of thousands, based on what they said at the time. And now I've updated it to hundreds of thousands, since they've updated their articles (and your Miami Herald source agrees). As for your Hercon Consultores estimate: (i) who? (ii) sourced to who? Rd232 ^talk 10:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Very well, we've got an adequate source for it now, so I guess it can stay, though with only two regional newspapers reporting the estimate, WP:WEIGHT is debatable. Lack of reporting of the estimate is perhaps unsurprising as the company appears to have a blogspot web address (going back to March 2011) and gmail email address, and little history that I can find before 2012... I'm reminded of the Reuters quote (in the article) a proliferation of little-known public opinion firms with no discernable track record... Rd232 ^talk 18:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Picture of Capriles

Can someone put up a better picture of Capriles in the infobox? The one that was there recently looked better than the one that is there now. 69.225.232.206 (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Hammersbach (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Chavez' use of chains

I don't know if this is worth posting in the article but the opposition / Capriles camp is not happy with Chavez' use of chains (basically mandatory broadcasts) to circumvent the CNE's (Electoral Commission) rules about how much air time a candidate can have. As it stands now all candidates are limited to 3 minutes a day of air time, but Chavez has on average used 40+ minutes of airtime per day since July 1st (official campaigning start date) according to a watchdog site.

Capriles issue with this is in this AP article: http://www.macon.com/2012/07/22/2103734/chavez-says-he-will-not-stop-taking.html

Website that follows how often Chavez has his chains: http://monitoreociudadano.org/cadenometro/ 75.70.40.195 (talk) 07:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Reputable opinion pollsters

For anyone wondering, Francisco Toro (Caracas Chronicles blog) gives some indication of why these pollsters with less of a track record deserve having their polls split out separately.

• Predicmática
• 6to Poder Datos
• Servi Mercadeo, Interdata, International Consulting Services

Rd232 ^talk 21:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Very good editing on your part. The tables make much more sense now. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've a question: who is Francisco Toro??? Now did we take a blogger as a reference to define which pollsters are trusted or "established"? Estratocastro (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If there is a non-native (foreign) poll, there needs to be a discussion regarding where it belongs. I don't think it should be listed with the native polls. For example, if a Russian newspaper conducted a poll regarding the US presidential election, it should be clearly evident. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I wonder where did you get that idea the Predicmática, Servi Mercadeo, Hercon Consultores, etc. are foreign pollsters. Estratocastro (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Provide the sources of the polls you want to add and we can have a look. We need to go thru this piece by piece. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The pollsters are in my reverted edition, or in the "Other pollsters" section of the current version. Apparently, these ones were separated because some blogger thought that they aren't "reputable". Estratocastro (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

They were separated because (i) they're not (or not much) mentioned in major media sources outside Venezuela, and often not that much in Venezuelan sources either, and (ii) they didn't figure (or figure much) in previous elections, as determined by looking at the relevant WP articles, so lack that sort of track record. Bonus points for lack of reputation were awarded for cases where media didn't seem to even be quite sure what the company was actually called. Only after I'd done that did I find Toro's analysis, which showed that these minor pollsters are not just less well known, but to some degree dodgy (well dodgier, none of the Venezuelan polling has the sort of solidity we expect in US/UK, say). Rd232 ^talk 00:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

As is detailed on Francisco Toro's website, the firms listed under "other pollsters" cannot be considered serious pollsters. Predicmática poses blatantly leading questions ("Do you agree that president Chávez, who is ill with cancer, should rule for six more years?"), Servi Mercadeo has polling results in which the sum of the percentages surpasses 100%, the so-called pollster "International Consulting Services" does not even have a website (which is remarkable for a company purporting to be in the business of international consulting), etc. etc. Their polling results should not be listed in the same table with polling results by more established pollsters. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

There should be an explanation in the Wikipedia page as to what criteria was used to consider some pollsters as established. The criteria used to classify a pollster as established and unestablished should be transparent and clear. Perhaps using a criteria such as "polls cited by international media" or "pollsters with more than 5 years of experience" would work. But just using a blog's criteria is not a good idea. -Solid Reign (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Venezuelanalysis dot com

The above website should not be used as the SOLE source for allegations or anything else. It is a chavista propaganda aimed at those in the english speaking world. This has come up again and again throughout articles on Chavez on others. If you can find an article critical of Chavez on there, please let me know. I read it now and then and see nothing against him. He has been President for 13 years, you'd think they would have something negative to say about him on some topic or another. It's a joke and a black mark on an otherwise solid article. If you must use it, also include another neutral source on the same point/topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phi O'Byrne (talk • contribs) 03:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/7182 - interview with anti-Chavez trotskyist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.62.226.31 (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't lie. Did you read what you linked? He has some criticisms of aspects or side effects of the "revolution", but he is not Anti-Chavez. In fact, he clearly states that his party (Marea Socalista) is still in the Chavez coalition and backs Chavez. Is this all you have? 192.136.12.38 (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Phi O'Byrne Washington's puppets are trying really hard even in wikipedia...if Chavez wins they call the elections a joke If he loses they will say everything is legal and clear...the familiar story as in Georgia and many many other countries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.249.49 (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you refute anything I have said? I wish you had family in Venezuela and had actually lived/been there and had some skin in the game. It's not just an abstract topic to talk about on the internet, it is real, very real. Regardless, if you can show Venezuelanalysis is not Chavista propaganda, be my guest. I am waiting. Wikipedia's articles on modern Venezuela are marred by their reliance on VA.com to insert propaganda. It is not a proper source, and its use is indicative of the limits of wikipedia's model. 96.255.14.65 (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Show what, if any, facts sourced to Venezuelanalysis are not true (in this Wikipedia article or any other). Rd232 ^talk 15:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The founder of VA is, as you well know, married to a women who has held many executive roles in Chavez government. This is not disclosed anywhere on the website. Will you at least admit that much? In the meantime, I will try to do as you asked. It is hard to prove something is 'not true', as you well know. But I will pick some of the more dubious assertions, even though I know I am wasting my time. In the meantime, how was this gem from Chavez a few nights ago. "If I lose, which I won't, but if I do there will be a civil war." Chavez, the consummate democrat. 205.130.226.41 (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It is hard to prove something is 'not true', as you well know. - sometimes it isn't (I suppose you mean it's hard to prove a negative, which is not the same thing at all). Your attributed quote to Chavez (no source, probably believing someone you shouldn't): "If I lose, which I won't, but if I do there will be a civil war." Actual quote: "I believe that this is true, if the Venezuelan bourgeoisie tries to apply this package Venezuela could see a civil war..." [9]. Rd232 ^talk 23:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, the results are up and in became pretty obvious that there were some misleading and manipulated or at least JOKE-polls. Please do not remove them so it will be clear who did not have a clue and was serving other causes...surely not measuring the electoral tendencies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.223.164 (talk) 09:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

POV Tag

In order to use a poll, the polling data needs to be accessible. Compare the last poll of each section. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Most of the polls don't have detailed breakdowns available; that's not a reason not to list polls, or to add a POV tag. Rd232 ^talk 10:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The last poll in that section is in an opinion piece. Unacceptable without the hard data. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well it may be harder to find good sources for some of those fringe pollsters, but that's just a question of effort I think. Still no reason for a POV tag, especially as most of the sources in the section are fine. Rd232 ^talk 16:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not how it works. An opinion piece that shows a poll favoring Capriles is an NPOV violation. There's another poll favoring Capriles linked to 2 pages on Blogspot, another NPOV violation. What also needs to be resolved is that when looking at the entirety of the sources in that section, does it maintain a neutral POV. Also, if there is a source that doesn't mention the margin of error for its results it should be removed. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It's very hard to find all the technicals details in the web, what you're asking is not possible. Nevertheless, I must let you know that the Venezuelan electoral body doesn't allow that the pollsters made public their results without providing first the technical information used to obtained them, so you can be sure that at least such technical information exists. As for the references issue, I agree with you, every poll whose data is obtained from a blog or an opinion article should be removed. Estratocastro (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Estratocastro, I commented in the section above entitled, "Reputable opinion pollsters". Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

WOW -Pages Of great stuff. I am sure. But what time do polls close? Facts also nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.60.165.64 (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Exit polls?

There's probably not much point adding exit polls, but in case they do turn out to be significant in the long term, here's one for people working on the article: the Brazilian news site pt:Brasil 247 seems to report an exit poll claiming Chavez 55% to Capriles 44%, as of the date/time "7 de Outubro de 2012 às 16:32". Disclaimer: my reading of portuguese is only rough. Boud (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistent naming of candidates

To be consistent, the article should either use "Hugo Chávez" and "Henrique Capriles" or "Hugo Chávez Frías" and "Henrique Capriles Radonski". At present it uses the maternal name for Capriles but not for Chávez. Best to drop the Radonski in my opinion, or maybe use both Frías and Radonski once each and then drop them. 88.167.22.75 (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Contended material

An AnonIP is reintroducing the following paragraph without providing reliable sources, as needed for such a contentious issue:

"Possible Fraud: Due to some strange results in states like Miranda, Zulia and Nueva Esparta - which were highly supportive to Capriles - it is possible that the government may have commited an electoral fraud. Besides that, after calculations with the numbers stated by the National Electoral Comission, there are almost 3 million votes that have not been counted in the total number of national votes. CNN has already stated the possibility of an electoral fraud. Civilians believe that Chávez make take military action if this fraud is demonstrated."

The burden of the proof rests in the editor, who made it to the article four times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.117.89.163 (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

AnonIP has done it again (5th time). Please discuss your disputed editions here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.117.89.163 (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, editor here. I'm Venezuelan, and I'm writing this paragraph because I want international people to know what's happening in my country. I am not making accusations, neither talling lies. Its not an opinion either, its a proven fact. Please Head Editor, let the paragraph stay so people can read it and think about their own conclusions. And by the way, I made a slight change; tell me if have permission to publish it. Thanks for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.142.53.99 (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You have to provide sources for your allegations (see WP:RS), even if they are just speculations (as they mostly are). It means: it doesn't matter what you believe, but you have to provide some reliable sources that in fact someone relevant has said the things you are publishing here. This is not an opinion forum but an encyclopedia. You even mention CNN, go and provide a link to a CNN article; the same regarding the fraud suspicions (Who said that? Where was it published? Etc). Saludos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.117.89.163 (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Talking about the calculation part... That isn't an opinion, it's actually true and can be calculated. What's supposed to be the source? Because my source is what they said on TV last night and my ability to multiply and divide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.142.53.99 (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean those 3 millions votes supposedly not counted? There should be some source to back up that conteion, as it seems to be quite a relevant contention for the electoral results. As far as I know, the results by CNE are consistent. If they are not, and it is a serious contention, it should be stated somewhere. Newspapers? Television broadcaster webpage? Political statement?

I've got the sources sir, can you help me post them correctly? Also, I have a little modification in the paragraph.

About the 3 million votes, its a calculation made by different people on Twitter, with no official confirmation. In the modification i state it, with explanation and everything. But I consider this article may help me get it official - if its not being discussed by my country's press right nor, of course. I'm a normal student from my country just trying to make a difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.142.53.99 (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Twitter is not a reliable source according to WP standards. It's a mostly anonymus quasi-forum with no standars regarding verifiability. And Wikipedia is not to get official anything, it is to reflect verifiable statements by other sources. If the explanation for the "missing votes" is that some States were leaning towards Capriles during the campaign, that's speculation. If you have some serious data regarding the mismanagment of the election results, then please provide them. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.117.89.163 (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you read the modified paragraph and my sources, please? That way you may tell if its reliable or not. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.142.53.99 (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Post it here in this thread, please. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.117.89.163 (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

===Possible Fraud===

Due to some strange results in states like Miranda, Zulia and Nueva Esparta - which were highly supportive to Capriles - it is possible that the government may have commited an electoral fraud. Zulia has always been known as one of the states with the greatest support to oppositin (about a million people were present in Capriles' campaign closure), and the National Electoral Committee stated that Chávez was more popular in Zulia than Capriles, which is not probable. Besides that, after calculations with the numbers stated by the National Electoral Comission, there are almost 3 million votes that have not been counted in the total number of national votes. It was stated by the National Electoral Commission that there was 90% of participation from the people, but the total number of votes is only 80-81%. That missing 9-10% corresponds to almost 3 million votes. Civilians consider Chávez's possible to be dangerous, believing that strong military force will be used if any possible fraud is confirmed.

http://hayuncamino.com/galeria/cierre-de-campana-en-nuestro-estado-zulia/

http://www.lapatilla.com/site/2012/10/03/maracaibo-se-prepara-para-la-llegada-de-capriles-fotos/

http://www.cne.gov.ve/web/sala_prensa/noticia_detallada.php?id=3051

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jZFtEAb0CI&feature=related — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.142.53.99 (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Chavez's possible actions* sorry about that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.142.53.99 (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Re

Well, the first two sources show that the Capriles campaign in Zulia State carried huge crowds of people, with no estimates regarding its number. But it doesn't matter: it only proves that Capriles had a huge back up in that state. It does not say anything about the actual results of the elections in that State, even less about the nationwide results. I mean, this is not a source to contend the electoral results: you cannot justify on your own estimates based on the size of an electoral campaign crowd that the results were flawed. If you have an official political statement casting into doubt the election results or an informed article on the press regarding the actual possibility of a fraud, please provide a link to either of those sources and write about what they say. Your sources are only backing up unsubstantiated speculations.

Regarding the third link, it states that the CNE had already scrutinized 90% of the voting, not that the electoral turnout was of 90% of the registered voters. CNE has consistently declared that the turnaout was 80-81% in official statements since the start of the recounting. So, there are no "missing votes" from the CNE counting. The recount was, needless to say, also scrutinized by the opposition alliance.

As for the fourth link, it is a campaign speech by Chávez last September attacking the main opposition candidate. It does not refer to the electoral results.

I'm sorry, but these sources do not back up your statements and allegations. Saludos y fuerza, que la historia no se detiene!

Re Where are you from?

In Wikipedia it does not matter who we are or from where we are. It does not prove anything (see WP:WHO). Anyway, I'm from Buenos Aires, Argentina. Saludos.

Lo supuse... Ese ultimo saludo me pareció raro de un gringo.

Señor, no existe ninguna posibilidad de utilizar estas fuentes para poder llegar a publicar el articulo, verdad? Mi pueblo está de luto, y aunque naciones como Rusia o la suya apoyen el trabajo de Chávez, estamos aterrorizados. La razón por la que se especula tanto y se arman tantos pleitos es porque la prensa internacional no nos presta atención. Si usted es chavista, termine la discusión aquí sin sentirse obligado a responder. Gracias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.142.53.99 (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a publisher of original research. You must show a reliable source explicitly backing your statement. By the way, the MUD said that "there is no evidence of fraud" [10] JRSP (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

While I'm Argentinean, and not pro-Chávez, I can't help to remind you that the international press is mostly consistently anti-Chávez and was sympathetic to the opposition alliance. I would seriously doubt that such fraud suspicions would not be amplified by the international media. As for the mourning and the fear you and your people may feel, I'm sympathetic. But I'm also happy that democracy is working uninterruptedly in our region for the last decades and that the opposition could rally so much people to the polls. You shouldn't give up. Nothing lasts forever. And the voice of the people is always the ultimate authority. BTW, not only the opposition alliance has stated "there is no evidence of fraud at all" [11], but Chávez called Capriles by phone and asked for national unity respecting the differences and the political divide expressed in the elections [12]. That's what I have to say. Anyway Wikipedia is not a forum so I will stop here. Saludos y fuerza!

Voter Turnout

In the table under the results section, it says that 14,901,740 votes were counted and that the total number of voters in Venezuela is 18,903,937. This would mean that the turnout is 78.8%, not 81% as is mentioned in the table. I don't think this is a big deal; perhaps once all of the votes have been counted we can think about changing it. For the same reason, I suggest changing this statement in the third paragraph: 'The elections showed a historically high turnout, above 80% of the electorate...' so that it reads 'The elections showed a historically high turnout, around 80% of the electorate...'. Once again, not a major issue, but perhaps something we would like to consider in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.219.171 (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The results are now updated, according to the National Electoral Commission official results. The difference is due to the fact that the 98.39% scrutinzed appears at the table as the 100% of the voters. However, the turnout is now at 80.67% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.117.89.163 (talk) 05:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Credible Accusations of Systemic Election Fraud

We need to have a section on fraud. It's all over the social media, and has been covered by international media as well (e.g. Univision, CNN). Here are a couple of sources, not for the article itself but they can be useful for backtracking press coverage: Anonymous accusation claiming to be from election technicians who allegedly were forced at gunpoint while their families were held hostage, to change the figures in the election computers before transmitting them: http://fraudecne.blogspot.ca/2012/10/tecnicos-del-cne-denunciamos-el-fraude.html and here is a video that shows proof of the existence of "multi-cedulados", people who have more than one "cedula", ID-card, equivalent to "social security number" in the U.S.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmZldZLQ1v4 I will also leave this link to an article written in May of 2012 which explains how experts on the election fraud in Venezuela expected the fraud would go down: http://blog.erlingsson.com/?p=4923 --Dr Ulf Erlingsson (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You only cite blogs and a youtube video. Where are the reliable sources? --RJFF (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

That is for you to find, my friend. The fact that there is censorship of media in Venezuela means that no media sources in Venezuela can be regarded as reliable, nor can the results from the national election authority be regarded as a credible source of information about how people actually voted. The whole election was a sham from beginning to end, yet that is not reflected one bit in this article. Is that good wikiculture? --Dr Ulf Erlingsson (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Coincidentally, the election has been challenged in four (4!) separate lawsuits to the Supreme Court. Isn't that relevant? Oh no, I know, "it hasn't been mentioned by Venezuelan media so there is no reliable source". Never mind that there is censorship in Venezuela so it is forbidden for their media to mention it. Come on, if you want to be the cattle of dictatorship then continue doing what you have been doing, and treat the country as a democracy in spite of evidence to the contrary. Just like we did with Nazi Germany in the 1930's. But if you have a spine, use common sense when editing this article. --Dr Ulf Erlingsson (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Venezuelan presidential election, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160305125520/http://www.radiosantiago.cl/2012/08/16/venezuela-henrique-capriles-aventaja-por-cuatro-puntos-a-hugo-chavez/ to http://www.radiosantiago.cl/2012/08/16/venezuela-henrique-capriles-aventaja-por-cuatro-puntos-a-hugo-chavez/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)