Talk:2017 Venezuelan regional elections

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Venezuela Low‑importance

	Venezuela portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Venezuela, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Venezuela on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VenezuelaWikipedia:WikiProject VenezuelaTemplate:WikiProject VenezuelaVenezuela articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This opinion polls ?

Untitled[edit]

maybe someone could copy the information to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.155.177.13 (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes[edit]

~~There's no need for massive quotes. Its WP:OVERQUOTE and WP:UNDUE.ApolloCarmb (talk)~~ 08:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC) Struck content from confirmed sockpuppet, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

@ApolloCarmb: This has gone to the extent from deleting quotes of representatives mentioned in the paragraph from deleting whole communiqués not mentioned anywhere in the article. There is no way this can be overquoting or undue weight, specially if the section is named "Irregularities" --Jamez42 (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ApolloCarmb: I repeat: This does not seem a case of WP:BLOWITUP. If the section is supposedly undue, the section should be complemented with government sources that contest the information, or at the very least tag it, not delete it completely. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ApolloCarmb: I'm doing my best to move, clean up and restore the deleted content. Please, discuss if you feel that any of the content is biased, but all of the information I've added is referenced. Please also see Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Adding in the opinions of everyone and their granny and stating them all as fact is clearly problematic.ApolloCarmb (talk)~~ 18:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC) Struck content from confirmed sockpuppet, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

@ApolloCarmb: You have cited WP:OVERQUOTE, WP:UNDUE and now this, three reasons on different occasions. I'm confused, which one is it? --Jamez42 (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Its all three.ApolloCarmb (talk)~~ 11:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Struck content from confirmed sockpuppet, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

@ApolloCarmb: How can the issue be solved then? It's clear that there's information missing in the article without the declaration, hence the NPOV template, and there should be a way to improve the article instead of deleting the whole statement. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Jamez42: What exactly do you want to see included?ApolloCarmb (talk)~~ 15:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Struck content from confirmed sockpuppet, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

@ApolloCarmb: All of the nine points denounced by the MUD should be included in the article for NPOV and further explaination of previous complaints.[1] I don't mind that the format is different or that the points are rephrased, but the information shouldn't be deleted. In fact, if there are any official or progovernment sources that contest the claims, which I haven't found, I'd be glad to add them. I also think that the Controversies section should be split in Irregularities. Any thoughts? --Jamez42 (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Jamez42: If the statement by the MUD is to be included it should be summarized. Maduro and Falcon's response should be included regardless.ApolloCarmb~~ (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Struck content from confirmed sockpuppet, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

@ApolloCarmb: Alright, Al Jazeera looks like a good source. A summary can be worked on.--Jamez42 (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]