Talk:2016 Colombian peace agreement referendum

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Heathercutajar.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Plebiscite

Please move the article to Colombian peace agreement plebiscite, 2016 as well as Chilean national plebiscite, 1988. In Colombia aren't synonymous. [1] [2]. --200.119.95.51 (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a good point – I will try and get some opinions about changing the name of the article. Richard3120 (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Richard3120 Bringing up an old discussion again. This edit [[3]] suggests the article should be named plebiscite, but in any case, the lead sentence doesn't match the title, so something has to change. Anyone with a better understanding of Colombia and Spanish want to take a shot? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: thanks for bringing this up again. The IP above is 100% correct, this was definitely a plebiscite – in English "referendum" and "plebiscite" are often seen as interchangeable, and indeed many reputable English-language sources used "referendum" as that's the more commonly-used term – for example, the BBC [4] and the New York Times [5] both use "referendum", while the Washington Post used "plebiscite" in the title and then "referendum" in the picture caption immediately below [6], showing that they view the two terms as interchangeable.

However, in Colombia, there is a legal distinction between the two – the National Registry (the official body in Colombia that overseas all voting procedures and counting) explains here [7] the difference between the two, in Spanish (you'll have to close the pop-up window first to view it). It's also here in Articles 3 and 7 of Law 134 of 1994, hosted on the website of the Bogota Mayoral Office [8]. If you don't speak Spanish, basically, the difference is that is a referendum can be called by a variety of public officials, it may contain several questions, each of which may be separately voted on "yes" or "no", and as Salaiken correctly states in the diff you posted, the results of a referendum are binding. On the other hand, a plebiscite may only be called by the President, it consists of only one question which is either approved or rejected in its entirety, and the result is not binding, i.e. there is no obligation to act on the result.

This is exactly what happened in this case – the plebiscite was called by the then president Juan Manuel Santos, there was just a single question, and despite being rejected, the result was ignored and the peace agreement was signed anyway a month later. I'm pretty sure that all Spanish-language sources will correctly use "plebiscite" – the National Registry calls it a plebiscite when it reported the results [9], the Spanish-language version of the same BBC article I quoted above uses "plebiscite" [10], as well as the country's major newspapers [11], [12], [13], and Colombia's two main national terrestrial TV channels/radio stations [14], [15]. Richard3120 (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Sounds like consensus for a move then. Want to do the honor? There's also this, for which Colombia is missing, despite there being multiple referendum articles (and this soon to be plebiscite article). Referendums by country#Central and South America.TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 03:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: should I post a note on the talk page of WikiProject Elections first, just to let them know about the proposed move and make sure everyone is on board? Richard3120 (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Just to note that the legal definitions don't really have a bearing on the article title here (just as in the case of the 2020 Russian constitutional referendum, which a few editors have tried to argue is "not a referendum" because referendum has a legal definition in Russia, which that vote does not comply with). What matters is how the vote is described in reliable English language sources. If most of them go with "referendum", that the current title should be retained. I would suggest you do an RM rather than make a potentially controversial move. Number 57 14:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Richard3120: I guess it’s safer to post on the elections project page, to cover your bases, but something strikes me as off about overruling a country’s naming convention because English writer’s don’t understand it. If there are Colombian sources in Spanish calling it a plebiscite, that should carry more weight. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: I entirely agree with you, but I suspect any RM will run up against a brick wall with the Elections WikiProject, as Number 57 (one of its most active members) has shown above. Richard3120 (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

An RM is open to all editors, not just members of the E&R WikiProject. If you think you can make a case for renaming, go ahead. My comments above are more from my perspective as a semi-regular RM closer than being an E&R viewpoint. Non-English sources are not generally considered relevant to how something should be named on en.wiki. Number 57 15:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Number 57: thank you for your comment. I will think about whether an RM is likely to pass before posting a message on the E&R WikiProject talk page – as you can see from my message above, I was already considering doing this before going ahead with the move. Richard3120 (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to notify the project. Any RM on an article tagged as an E&R one will automatically appear in the alerts. Cheers, Number 57 15:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

What is this?

"..the solution to the problem of illicit drugs on victims" - what does this mean? Plainly it needs to be rephrased, but as what? Harfarhs (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Harfarhs: I've been trying to improve some of the English on the article but I haven't had time to work through all of it yet: it should be something like "victims affected by the illicit drug trade" but I'll see if there's a better wording. Richard3120 (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Map is incomprehensible

The map should be labelled in English, and explained, and any good.

I am guessing that the lumpy thing at the top is Colombia split into districts and how they voted but what's with the world map? Colombians worldwide could vote, most of them voted Yes but in US they voted No? There's a statistically significant number of Colombians living in Greenland but none in most of Africa? What's with the Yellow voters? How did they vote in Malta, I want to know but it's too small to see. Colombians based in Antartica were too cold to vote? What about Colombians in space? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.180.168 (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll pass this on to Shadowfox, who appears to have created the map – my feeling would be that it's probably simpler to forget adding a world map and just have the total 'Yes' and 'No' votes from expat Colombians, and mention in the text that in only three countries, the US, Paraguay and the UAE, the 'No' vote won... and even then in the latter two countries it's hardly worth mentioning because there were only 70 votes in total in Paraguay and 281 in the UAE. Richard3120 (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

'No' won in five countries (also Costa Rica and Panama). The data about consulate votes is here (source of the image). --Taichi (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Taichi for the correction: I was going by a Colombian newspaper report that said only three countries voted 'No'. In any case, I think the combined total of all votes outside Colombia is easier and more important to report than individually by country, but that's just my opnion. Richard3120 (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I checked the source and the total of 'No' countries is 9 (also Aruba, Curacao, El Salvador and Jamaica). --Taichi (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome.--Shadowxfox (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Shadowfox – I guess the first or second map would be the best? Richard3120 (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. Choose the map of your preference. I changed the map to "only departments"--Shadowxfox (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Shadowxfox: It's possible use dots over Aruba and Curacao, because the islands are too small in the world map? --Taichi (talk) 05:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. Cuantos mapas habrán que hacerse para satisfacer a una IP cuyo único aporte a este artículo es una queja mal formulada ? --Shadowxfox (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Voting age population

I added the voting age population and turnout to the results table, but another user continues to remove it. Do you support its inclusion? Thanks. Pristino (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

No. It's inclusion is clearly inappropriate because it's not actually the voting age population – for a start it's lower than the number of people who voted. And as it's from a source that has no relevance to the referendum results, it's also WP:SYNTH. Please respect WP:BRD and get consensus for your edits rather than repeatedly readding them. Thanks, Number 57 09:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• it's not actually the voting age population

Yes, it is. VAP (Voting Age Population) = population over the age of 18 living in the country.

• it's lower than the number of people who voted

I think you mean lower than the number of registered voters. Yes, and that's expected, as a number of registered voters live abroad.

• it's from a source that has no relevance to the referendum results

It's from an authoritative source (UNDESA). VAP is very much relevant to calculate the true turnout rate of an election.

• it's also WP:SYNTH

Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not numerical summarization.

• Please respect WP:BRD and get consensus for your edits rather than repeatedly readding them

That should go to you, as well, as you have reverted me three times already. You've been warned. Pristino (talk) 05:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

To respond point-by-point:

1. Whilst it may be the voting age population in the country, it is not the voting age population for the referendum, as people not in the country can vote.
2. Yes, that is what I mean.
3. It may be an authoritative source for populations, but it's not necessarily looking at the same dataset as the RNEC.
4. It is WP:SYNTH because you are "[combining] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Your "What SYNTH is not" link is not relevant as that is about calculations made from a single source of data, which is not the case here.
5. As you're unable to respect WP:BRD, I'm now filing a report and requesting you be blocked.

Number 57 11:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I do agree with the answers given by Number 57. Wykx (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you will find this article most interesting, Number 57: http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37634526. Pristino (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)