Talk:2004 Venezuelan recall referendum

message: User:Hajor wrote Boud, I think the "US/Can local executives" proviso is unnecessary: Head of State it says, Head of State it means.
The struggle for power between states and States is continuous. The economy of California is bigger than that of many States in the world; while more than 50% of laws of States like France and Germany are imposed by the EU, so it's not really clear that France and Germany (let alone smaller States in the EU) are still sovereign States. But i agree that this makes the statement a bit heavy, probably something lighter is possible... Boud 00:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Head of State is pretty unequivocal in this context. It's also a remark of major historical import -- "first one of its kind ever". Best to let it stand alone, without qualification: if someone is curious about other (non-national) recalls that have taken place, they can go and check the recall election article. Also, re States and states: Venezuela is itself federal, of course, so the natural parallel should be with the USA or Canada (or with the EU, at some point in the future),  not with their constituent states . Still, if you want try something lighter, go ahead; I'd just be wary of diluting the importance of the comment by splitting explanatory hairs. Cool? –Hajor 02:12, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The present version looks OK to me - i think the in any nation bit was what got me most bothered before - since nation does not always correspond to State. But i agree that the present version is clear - head of state already is a rather formal expression, plus you've capitalised it, plus it's a link to a wikipedia page. Cool. :) Long live the Wikirepublic! ;) Boud 11:53, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprecedented

message: Why doesn't the article mention the massive fraud that the opposition had to undertake to get the required signatures to force a recall vote? Over a million of the signatures were ineligible. Eric B. and Rakim 18:59, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Because noone had bothered to wite about it. This is the wikipedia. Boud 21:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: And you have done a very good job of fixing that, thank you! I am quite impressed at how this article has progressed in very short time, some cleaning up will be needed, but nevertheless --Dittaeva 21:46, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Signature gathering, fraud?

message: :In November 2003, the opposition collected a new set of signatures, with 3.6 million names produced in four days. In February 2004, Roberto Abdul, one of the directors of Súmate the USA-backed NGO that collected the signatures, word missing that at least 265,000 of the signatures were invalid. missing junction here? According to their own calculations. missing junction here? The majority of the CNE rejected the petition, saying that only 1.9 million were valid; 1.1 million doubtful and 460,000 completely invalid. The invalid signatures contained persons that had died many years earlier, infants and persons that weren't even Venezuelan citizens. Of the signatures categorized as doubtful, 876,017 all had the personal details written in the same handwriting except for the signature itself.
There are several problems here. 
#Did Abdul find or state this?
#Which sentence does According to their own calculations match up with? The sentence before or the sentence after?
#876,017 all had the personal details written in the same handwriting except for the signature itself
##It's hard to believe that a single person wrote 876,017 signatures - i think what is meant is that on 876,017 petition forms, the signature is in different hand-writing to that of the personal details.
Boud 21:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The petition

message: There is some stuff in this (right wing) that I think merit inclusion. Won't take the time myself right now. --Dittaeva 12:12, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Using Newsmax.com as a source won't be helpful. If Newsmax is used, it'll have to be balanced by a Communist, pro-Chavez rag like Cuba's Gramna. We should instead utilize the amble array of more credible sources available online, like academic journals, the BBC, AP, Reuters, etc. 172 12:17, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Sure, but assuming its not all lies, there are points (or events) in there that I think merit inclusion, it would off course be best if the source is not Newsmax. --Dittaeva 12:28, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be missing the point. If there are points or events in the article that merit inclusion then they should be available from other sources such as BBC, AP, Reuters etc. If they are not, then it is arguable if they do merit inclusion. If still think they do, then there must also be points in Communist, pro-Chavez rags as 172 says which merit inclusion but most Wikipedians don't feel this way.60.234.141.76 20:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV balancing 

message: I have modified the sentence on the timing. If I understand it correctly, the date chosen would have been significant only if Chavez was recalled (which he was not). Although Chavez may have chosen the date for this reason, the fact is the date was in the end insignificant as far as I can tell. So unless there is evidence people changed their vote because of the potential outcome or the date was otherwise significant in who voted and how they voted IMHO it is important to make it abunduntly clear that the date as it turned out was not significant, even if it may have been chosen because it might have been significant. I feel my modification does this well but if you have a different suggestion change it or discuss it here. 60.234.141.76 20:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date 

message: The article says the referendum question was counter-intuitive. I would have to strongly disagree. The referendum was recall election. A recall election is about recalling someone, generally a leader, i.e. removing them from office. If you support recalling someone, you want to remove them from office. Obviously then if you vote yes, you want to remove them from office. This is not a motion of confidence/no confidence. If this was a motion of confidence then a yes vote should be expressing confidence and a no vote would be expressing no confidence. In both cases, you are to some extent asking the same thing but in different ways. But in both cases, the answer is not IMHO counter intuitive. Either you are saying yes I want to remove Chavez (or whoever from office or you are saying yes I support Chavez. Which ever question you ask, both are just as intuitive IMHO. At the very least then IMHO the discussion should say something like "to some this may seem counter-intuitive" 60.234.141.76 20:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counter-intuitive 

message: From the article: "An interesting piece of information is that 10% of the votes were cast manually, as not all polling places could be automated. In those places where voting was manual Chavez won 70% to 30%, an even wider margin than when using the automated technology. This, of course, puts all claims of electronic voting fraud in a very difficult situation."
I really didn't think the summary was particularly appropriate or accurate. From Venezuelanalysis.com: Manual count of votes from rural and low income urban areas where Chavez has widespread support, and where automatic machines were not used, could increase the President's margin of victory.  Hence the change. 129.72.143.42 07:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manual Votes? 

message: I was unable to find The Economist article referenced in footnote one through proquest or lexisnexis, which makes me think that it doesn't exist, or is miscited.  I also ran searches for the article title "Authenticated, but not quite agreed" but found nothing.  Is this a real source?
If it's not, should we consider removing the content from the article?
24.213.197.102 20:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, and it also shows that the previously removed claim that Chávez was using violence and threats of violence to prevent the recall election should be reinstated for being factual and relevant. Dr Ulf Erlingsson (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economist Article 

message: :Image:Chavez referendum.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Chavez referendum.jpg

message: There was a special section in Statistical Science Vol. 26, Nr. 4, November 2011, about the Venezuelan recall referendum. I've mentioned it briefly in the article, but I think the whole article may need to be reviewed in the light of the new evidence that clearly demonstrates, using a wide array of tools, that the result was fraudulent. Dr Ulf Erlingsson (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added links to the individual papers. The summary paper (here) is obviously the most digestible, and has a note of caution the individual papers don't. It would be worth looking out for any responses (though given scientific publishing timescales, it might well take a couple of years). Rd232 talk 20:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Fraud Studies 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040905004646/http://edition.cnn.com:80/2004/WORLD/americas/08/16/venezuela.recall.ap/index.html to http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/08/16/venezuela.recall.ap/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060330020217/http://www.wmd.org/democracyalerts/july1504.html to http://www.wmd.org/democracyalerts/july1504.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050313204850/http://newswire.indymedia.org:80/en/newswire/2004/08/808090.shtml to http://newswire.indymedia.org/en/newswire/2004/08/808090.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071117043011/http://caracas.usembassy.gov:80/wwwh2678.html to http://caracas.usembassy.gov/wwwh2678.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120717020928/http://www.eluniversal.com/2004/08/15/revo_ava_15A483829.shtml to http://www.eluniversal.com/2004/08/15/revo_ava_15A483829.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified