Talk:2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum

message: Thought it'd be nice to have one of these near the top instead of all over the discussion page. Meant for sources not introduced into the article. Please add stuff as they come.
* Post-referendum analysis
** 
** 
** 
*Reaction
**  
**  
** , MercoPress says the same thing, already added.  
**  Brasil already included in MercoSur summary, would rather not clunk up the text with additional citations when we've already got one.  
**  
**    OAS - Insulza
**  
* Student participation
** 
** 
**  
* Election day issues
**  
**  
* University incident
** NOTE: particularly interesting
* Pro Rallies
**
**
*Expat vote
** 
*Proposal summary and general process 
**  
**  
Edit as you'd like. Needed cites: full proposals, reliable CIA info, over-all spirit of demonstrations
:Thanks, X, this will be helpful if we can actually start writing.  As soon as I have time, I'll convert your links above to cite templates.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation pool

message: * Noting that pro-Chávez marches currently are unmentioned and a sentence or two needs to be added along with the opposition marches.
* Importance of student involvement in overall outcome.
* International reaction.
* Election day issues.
* Post-referendum analysis.
* Reliable source on CIA incident needed.
* Polls which predicted referendum would lose aren't included.  
* Re-write analysis of the procedure for a referendum including list of what was in referendum proposal; I'm willing to work on this section if others agree. 
(Please add to this list so we can start writing.)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Needed

message: Do Bloomberg and AP.google links endure or do they go dead over time?  For example, the Miami Herald links go dead, so I hesitate to use them.  I'm not sure on these two new ones, but if we can find those on a permanent link, it would be better. AP and Reuters reports are picked up by many newspapers, so we should try to use one we know has permanent links.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hard to tell. I'm pretty positive ap.google does... sorta (it seems likely). Bloomberg doesn't seem to, but I can't search by date to tell; all I know is their searches are limited to 998 pages Xavexgoem 19:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes on those, if you put the article title into Google, you can find them on another publisher.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: wouldn't know if others archived, though. I'm not getting a lot of luck. Where can this be asked (ap.google & bloomberg)? Xavexgoem 19:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really know; I only know from experience that the Miami Herald links go dead.  If we need to use anything potentially controversial from a site we're not sure of, we can always include the direct quote in the footnote, in the event the link goes dead.  I don't actually understand what JerseyDevil wants to use from the MiamiHerald, since I didn't see anything interesting in that article, other than Chavez moving the site to a place with limited parking.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:WBM? Xavexgoem 19:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I use it all the time for other (non-news) sources, but 1) they take months to archive things, and 2) most of the news sources now have robots which prevent archival there (I believe it may have to do with copyright, not sure).  So, don't count on it.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the issue, then. The dead citation problem is dealt with in WP:CITE, and, as you said, the relevant info can be added as a footnote. At any rate, what now? Xavexgoem 20:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It only becomes a problem if someone challenges your cited information in the future, and you can't produce the quote or the text; yes, I've seen this happen many times, particularly on controversial articles.  If you can't support your text, someone may delete it, so we're better off using the most durable sources from the get-go, and if you know a source might not be durable, add the quote to the talk page or very briefly in the footnote.  Next?  I'm beginning the reading to try to summarize the actual proposal and the history of how the referendum came about; I hope JRSP will be around later to review and check my work before I add anything.  Maybe you can pick an area from the "needed" list below you want to work on expanding or writing?  I like to work in sandbox before I add potentially difficult text.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll work on preliminary process the best I can. Evening it out and such. Xavexgoem 20:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: X, are you referring to the student issues and all that?  Because I'm trying to rewrite the entire business of how the reform proposal came about, and what it entailed, just so we don't get crossed up.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (20x colons) support & opposition. Everything past Nov. 3 relating to yes/no vote protests. I take it you're doing the basic political process? Xavexgoem 20:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure, X.  I had one link go dead yesterday already (Mercury News), but I was able to locate the same article elsewhere by merely plugging the article title in to Google.  Since we're not sure on Bloomberg, your best insurance for now is to save a printed copy, in case any of your text is challenged if it goes missing in the future.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Questions 

message: This page is a perfect example of why Wikipedia is starting to lose all credibility and get itself banned from educational institutions around the world.  Allowing just any kook conspiracy to be added to an article and then sit there for days while red tape and bureaucracy spin their wheels is why this place is becoming a laughing stock. 72.245.144.250 18:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, maybe we should put a watch on this page for capitalist agents editing it to suit their ideology. Ottawastudent 00:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or Maybe! A watch for chimpanzee agents editing the page for their banana acquisition scheme! Or better yet, just try to keep it from POV from ANY side... Tonerman 09:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This the worst written and most biased pro-Chavez article ever... Yes, there should be a watch for Fascists like Ottawastudent from editing.--200.109.28.71 12:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of this article, you would think, was the referendum and not Chavez anyway. Pro- or anti- shouldn't even have to be brought up. E.G., what Chavez's wife said should have no bearing on the referendum nor this article. There is a lot wrapped up in this, much of which can be moved to other articles. I suggest a controversy header for any potentially specious arguments or articles if that can't be cleared up. Xavexgoem 13:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Edit: At any rate, it might be wise to keep the pro-s and anti-s relatively even, and avoid "pro-chavez" and "the opposition"; even out the terminology?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavexgoem (talk • contribs) 13:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Watch page

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "The article Needs Additional Citations for Verification" Banner 

message: 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 , clearly wearing shirts in support of the SI vote, and heres a picture of the front of the theatre on an empty day . 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.http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7060225,00.html].
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.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7121487.stm.
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Carefully worded one-sided arguments don't address WP:UNDUE; please read and respond accordingly.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I Agree with SandyGeorgia Firebird 06:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive changes without reason 

message: The article is really a mess. I see tons of claims made in the article linking up to unreliable or outright partisan sources. Some commentary is made as well. Hopefully we can fix this up soon since alot of people are going to be viewing this page.--Jersey Devil 07:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted it once, and it's back, so I tagged the article.  The mess about the students already has its own article and could be a link at most, ditto for the CIA conspiracy theories.  With that kind of cleanup mess of WP:UNDUE in the article, I haven't expended the effort to write a real article based on reliable sources.  It can be quickly solved by removing the student and CIA poorly written sections and simply linking to those articles; and the article that hasn't even been started can be written. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: For your NPOVing pleasure, here's where you can easily source the "ridiculous" sentence you speedy deleted and here's where you can balance the story..  But Operation Pliers is where most of that conspiracy theory is already developed, and it is given WP:UNDUE in this article.  There are dozens of sources easily available for neutral editing.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another source,  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking maybe it could be trimmed and placed into some kind of subsection with the main article linking to it with one of those "main" templates as it doesn't go along well with the section it is in. I would otherwise call for it to be removed entirely however since it was the Venezuelan authorities who have made this claim and since Chavez himself threatened to cut off oil exports to the U.S. over it there should be some mention of it. Though it should be made very clear that these are just allegations.--Jersey Devil 08:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it warrants a full section with a  template, rather a link to Operation Pliers within one or two sentences (see how the New York Times article above deals with it), but however it's done, the conspiracy theory story right now has undue weight in this article.  I've already been reverted by Ira Weaver once when I tried to work on the article, so I'm confining my edits to adding refs, cleaning up refs, and doing the ongoing and extensive MOS cleanup (does *anyone* read WP:MOS?)  I've been adding sources as I find them so others can try to write the article comprehensively and neutrally, but the article doesn't even begin to deal with the actual election yet; when I encountered it, it was nothing more than a WP:SOAPBOX about the CIA and a one-sided version of the student protests, with almost no treatment of the actual referendum.  Lots of work needed here; not possible if biased editing prevails.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is a Mess 

message: Treybien, why are you deleting date links that conform with WP:MOSDATE; Month-day combos are linked so user preferences will work. I also see you're WP:OVERLINKing common words known to most English speakers.  And speaking of MOS, WP:ITALICS and WP:CITE/ES might be helpful here, along with WP:WTA and WP:AWW.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting date links and overlinking 

message: :"In a meeting with trade unionists on November 22 from the Unión Bolivariana de Trabajadores (UBT), Fuerza Bolivariana de Trabajadores (FBT) and Fuerza Socialista (FS) as well as student activists, Chávez stated that 46 percent of the 2008 budget will be allocated to social projects and infrastructure, with five percent of it being directed by community councils[unreliable source?].[10]"
Does this mean 5% of the budget aside from the 46%, 5% of the total budget included in the 46% or 5% of the 46%? 
KV(Talk) 12:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see a need for that text in the article anyway, particularly since it's not sourced to a reliable source and doesn't stay tightly focused on the topic of the article.  An article aobut the referendum needs to be written still; cleaning out the unnecessary text will be a start.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed in article 

message: Can someone explain why Venezuelanalysis, a completely biased pro-Chavez source, is being used to source the article when reliable sources are available?  Also, the page layout has been rendered unreadable by poor arrangement of images and tables.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a change from a neutral, reliable source (BBC) to a biased source.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I might be wrong, but the BBC article was a run-down of fairly specific parts of the proposed changes. The article from venezuelanalysis is pretty dry... It's just a run-down of _all_ the proposed changes. I realize it's not the best source. OTOH, the spanish article (on spanish wiki) does list every article proposed; and the difference between the BBC article and the one from VA is significant. The source might not be great, but THAT particular article was not biased so far as I could see. The list of proposed changes is important enough, and that's the quickest source I could find. Xavexgoem 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No matter how it appears, Venanalysis will not present a neutral examination of the referendum. Not biased as far as I could see isn't the basis we use for determining sources; we use WP:V and WP:RS.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't an examination; it's a translation. I'll try and find a better source, nevertheless. EDIT: I admit, I'm having trouble finding one. Might it be wise to include the amendments for context somewhere on wiki? Dunno what to do here. Xavexgoem 16:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone knowledgeable will eventually find an adequate source and complete the text (from El Universal, El-Nacional or another reliable source, it is most certainly available); for now, it's best to avoid recentism in the rush to add content, and best to stick to reliable sources like the BBC until other material surfaces.  I've juggled the images to at least correct the poor layout, but it's still not optimal, because the table at the top creates layout issues.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page layout and biased sourcing 

message: The term Article 70 is introduced in the text but never defined in context.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: The news stories report this as a single straight yes-or-no vote, yet there were 69 constitutional amendments?  I'm a little confused at how you define where one constitutional amendment ends and the next begins if they're all part of a single vote.  Were these numbered items added to the end of the constitution as per the American model? 70.15.116.59 18:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please clarify... 

message: I apologize for that sweeping change (since reverted), but...
IMO, about 50% of this article has material already available on other articles, particularly the CIA bit and the hostage bit. 70% of the text under preliminary process focuses on opposition, support, etc., which imo would fit better under another title. Perhaps Lead, Results, Poll, Process, and Opposition. Or whatever. But currently we have a lot of text on the protests under "preliminary process", and a huge bit on the CIA allegations under its own header. It seems to make the most sense to me to put opposition/CIA details here, and political processes here. Or something. Xavexgoem 19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but trying to write a *real* article that's actually about the election has been a challenge, when those undue sections are included.  Most of that text is available elsewhere and could be summarized to a few sentences, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen. The "hostage" bit appears as an attempt to present a one-sided view of the student protests, and the significance of the role played by the students in the outcome hasn't yet been addressed.  Perhaps today or tomorrow, one good, definitive summarizing source will come out from which we can write an article about the referendum instead of the related events.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd add that this is a strange edit summary, considering the changes had been discussed on talk and there didn't appear to be any disagreement.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On my part? It seemed to reduce the amount of undue weight. I admit that I'm mostly trying to make everything nice and compact and reduce the amount of unreliable sources in text. Xavexgoem 20:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted any large scale changes to be discussed here. One of the main reasons I did it was because in place of the "CIA allegations" section there was a sentence saying something like "There have also been allegations of CIA involvement" which seemed to me to be completely out of place. Also the header "Political Process and Opposition" seemed strange to me. Anyway, I understand what you mean. The article is a mess right now. More stuff on the actual process needs to be added in.--Jersey Devil 20:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, my proposal atm is this: move approval process and trade meeting into "proposed modifications" (or delete the trade meeting; I don't see it's significance aside from the money-moving bit, which is tangential but has context were the proposals to go through), retitle "political process" as opposition/protest/whatever, devoting one para to YES voters (lacking), one to NO voters (and their friends in high places), and one to the CIA allegations. Expand the more mundane political process into it's own header when available. Or something like that. I don't know where to look for relevant data on YES voters (BBC, NYT, etc, are not forthcoming, and the rest is in Spanish or from unreliable sources). Thoughts, suggestions, am I being overbearing? Xavexgoem 20:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I'm not being very helpful, X; I'm still digging through sources to see if I can find anything useful and comprehensive.  The entire article needs restructuring; JRSP and I avoided these problems in the last Venezuelan elections by getting the structure of the article in place well in advance of the elections, and that helped avoid controversy while in the thick of the elections.  Improving the structure while on the main page is hard.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There are three sections right now which I don't understand why are given so much space:  1) CIA, 2) one incident of the broader issue of student protests and 3) that trade meeting. I see no reason not to delete the trade meeting, the student issues and protests warrant their own section and broader more comprehensive coverage (right now it's biased to one incident and doesn't cover the big picture), and the CIA needs a two- or at most three-sentence summary in the runup to the referendum.   I'm not sure I agree on your structure.  I see:  History (how the process works, how the proposal came about), Proposed modifications (the actual modifications in the referendum), Runup to the referendum (or some such title about precurors to the actual vote), Results (summarize polls in one or two sentences here before adding resuls, since polls are now dated) and Aftermath.  Maybe more.  That's my idea for a start.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ps, X, don't worry about the final data yet; I'm sure as soon as it's available, it will be added.  The gist of the article (a narrow defeat) won't change.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll help! :D But I'd rather (maybe as a challenge?) get this done while it remains on the main page before the news itself becomes dated. I don't know policy that well, but since this is a dynamically updated encyclopedia, I wouldn't want things (particularly important things such as) to be relegated only posterity, if you follow me :). And I suppose it's also a question of balance (I'm new to editing big articles like this), because editing down, say, the student bit allows too much "room" for the CIA bit, and vice versa, yadayada. I dunno. Personally, I just want to see how it works out (I'm bored, having fun, but I do take things seriously). Rambling, sorry. Xavexgoem 21:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (and by done, I mean stable and readable while it's particularly relevant)Xavexgoem 21:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: oh, I completely agree!  The job needs to be done, and the sooner the better, and people tend to lose interest later (that's why it was fortunate that JRSP and I put the structure in place prior to the last election, because then all the info just fell into place when the editing got hot).  But, the problem now is that we're all running up against WP:3RR, and I can't get any work done in that environment.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Ex-wife is significant to the extent she is an example of how much support he has lost and how even those close to him have waned in support; perhaps you can find a way to work with that without making it too sensational or personal, or maybe you can find something in another one of the articles.  Ex-minister is highly significant, as he was one of original Chavez group; that needs to be developed better.  I'm working on the approval process in the History and development of the proposal (see below).  I'm having a hard time following all of your shorthand above, so I'm not entirely clear on what else you are suggesting.  Protests, riots all need to be placed in a broader, more encyclopedic context and framework; the role played by the students, Chavez's waning popularity, the perception that he was pushing too far against democracy and lost support even from his base as a result.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of things. We are working in the same header (preliminary process), so we need to break that up somehow: To my knowledge, you are working on the "behind closed doors" politics (e.g., Initial proposal, NA proposals, voting); I'm working on the demonstrations and the opinions. What I meant in my comment above was that the body of text within the "preliminary process" header is all over the place (or at least was). I suggested changing the name of the header to something else, but that's not so anymore because you're actually working on the preliminary process. What I am doing for the moment is evening out the yes voters and no voters (and I'm working entirely from sources, not having much context). You're right about the ex -wife and -minister; however, it would be nice to have significant opinions that say otherwise, and (hopefully) people inbetween (something to be cited). Thoughts? Xavexgoem (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Argh, I never complete my thoughts. I'm proposing a header for "out in the open" politics, such as rallies, riots, etc.Xavexgoem (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: X, we edit conflicted just as I was typing the same thing to you :-)  Just to clarify again so we don't get crossed up, I'm planning to work up a two- or three-sentence summary of history that led to Chavez's proposal to place the entire article in context, the Aug 15 proposal, the date issues of the three votes now dealt with at the top of the "Preliminary process" section, a better cited summary of the actual proposal, and work all that in with the "Proposed modifications" section.  I will write one section which gives the background, the process, and the actual proposal, and figure out a better section heading for it.  What is now labeled as "Preliminary process" is a very bad heading. I'm working out the process as it relates to the actual proposal; I understood you were working on the reaction and the runup to the actual referendum/election.  Is that correct?  Don't worry about headings; develop text, and headings will logically follow.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. My goal for now is: per yes sentence, 1 no sentence :) not too many sentences, either. Getting a timeline of the rallies is proving difficult (the first yes rally was Nov. 3? What about everything before that? Last no rally was Nov 29?) Xavexgoem (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not certain on the dates, but try to avoid WP:PROSELINE; the dates for that info aren't as relevant as the effect of the students, etc.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Small confession: I'm no good at writing without a bias. I _WILL_ remove any perceived bias on my part after I transfer it from my sandbox, but I can't guarantee everything will make it through unscathed. Hope this will end with a good organic process and no polemics carried over into the talk page. With that said, any contributions made by myself that are reverted with reason should not count towards anyones 3RR, if I may be so bold. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh. I need a break. It's very difficult to incorporate context from my side of the fence, and the citations needed for much of it are said to be unreliable. I might work on something later, but politics I should probably stay away from for the time being. My brain is tired. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapsing Headers 

message: Here is some info from the Miami Herald on the Venezuelan expatriate vote. Don't know where to place in in the article at the moment. --Jersey Devil 20:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JerseyDevil, which part of that article interests you?  I suggest putting the excerpt here, because Miamiherald links go dead quickly.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venezuelan Expat Vote 

message: JerseyDevil, this edit makes no sense to me; that is not rhetoric, it is Chavez's clearly stated goals, well referenced, and this edits strips the lead down to nothing. I can't understand an edit that removes the essence of the referendum from the lead, and I'm afraid making any progress on this article will be difficult with such unilateral editing.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just think that the intro should be purely about what the referendum was (a vote on 69 amendments to the Constitution) and not Chavez' commentary on what it was. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that it belongs in the article but I think that it would be better to put in the body of the article instead of the intro.--Jersey Devil 04:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I disagree that a lead that short is of any use, and you didn't put it in the body of the article; you deleted it and the source.  So, systematically, the article is being left with no content but a CIA conspiracy theory.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know where to put it. The article is so unorganized at this point that I wasn't sure where to put it. Feel free to add it where you wish on the body of the article.--Jersey Devil 05:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't much like to participate in an environment where reverting is taking hold over discussion; it's a waste of time.  There is a lot of typing needed here, and it can be best underaken via discussion rather than deletion and reverting.  I'm confident you can find a place for the text.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: can you clarify "disagree with exercising the entire point of the referendum from the lead"? I don't understand why we "aren't writing" this yet. Would like to know the method. (2 questions, sorry) Xavexgoem 16:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a clear purpose and reason for the referendum to occur in the first place, that information is clearly relevant to the lead IMO, and yet, JerseyDevil removed it from the lead and hasn't restored it.  Why *I* am not writing yet is that I don't exert effort into an article when reverts and deletes are taking place without discussion or against consensus; first, because it's a waste of time, and second, because we run up against WP:3RR and can't get any work done.  I'm not willing to put the effort into writing text that is going to be reverted without discussion.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree there, although I don't see anything about "the inventor of the true republic and rightful lifelong leader" in the abc citation. Xavexgoem 17:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So now you see the reason for the need to seriously attach a specific citation to any direct quote :-)) Yes, we may to rework that wording, but there are almost no sources which don't give us plenty to work with, since it was Chavez's initiative, and he did have a reason for it.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange deletion

message: This article is absolutely full of it. First of all, why are there no pictures of the opositionist activities? Second, there is no mention of the irregularities during the process, like how several machines failed, and how the results were kept in hold for 4 hours, the National Guard attacking the oppositionist witnesses and not allowing them enter the CNE building, among others. Third, the Allegations of CIA involvement part is absolutely biased and has little to do with the article, Chavez has said the same thing about hundreds of activities. Infact, the whole list of mentions should be either merged with the CIA article, the Chavez article or spawn a new article. Fourth, the proposed modifications are interpreted in a different way than actually written. It is said, textually, that there only private property would exist for basic necessities or goods that are being used. I find that worth to mention. The working hours would be reduced from 40 to 36, but the working week would include Saturdays too. Eliminating the limits imposed in calling a State of Emergency and would be able to call it indefinitely.
I believe the article should be rewritten from scratch.190.79.58.11 17:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: give us sources. Xavexgoem 17:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not troubled by the images; we have what we have, and often, we just don't have access to free images that can be used on Wiki.  Irregularities can be added once we have the sources; we should add that to the list above, and begin looking for sources.  I'm OK with the CIA section now, because that's all the material we have to work with, and we can't really leave it out because it was a notable event (notable in terms of how Wiki defines it).  As to the analysis of this being something Chávez and/or the left-wing press routinely does, we can't really deal with that until/unless a reliable source gives us something to work with.  I was planning to work on the Project proposal section myself, since that requires reading English and Spanish and integrating all the sources, and I've been able to work well with JRSP on text like that in the past.  Yes, the entire article still needs to be constructed, neutralized and made more comprehensive; currently, there is almost nothing of interest or relevance in this article except the actual results, and before we could start writing, we had to deconstruct the WP:SOAPBOX article that was created before the Referendum. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, IP, I see you're editing from CANTV; it would be stupendous if you would throw some Venezuelan sources up here so I don't have to go looking for them.  I can read Spanish, but having to search for articles in the Venezuelan press when I don't know the search terms is hard for me.  Add some links that we can work with, and if you can find things at El Universal's English news page, even better.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Wait, you are telling me that no one around here is actually Venezuelan? Oh, I'll go one better than that.  I'll tell you my Venezuelan comadres and compadres have been massively negligent, and have allowed others to write their history and destiny. I can translate, and I know all of the Venezuelan reliable sources and their respective biases (and limitations on writing because of lack of freedom of the press), but it is very hard for me to effectively search on those sites, I would love some help.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: Hey, X, while this edit most likely makes perfect sense to "all of us", technically, direct quotes must always be cited, so it would probably be better to leave the named ref tag on those.  If not, someone may come along and tag the quote as needing a cite :-) All you have to do is add back the <ref name = business, with a close /.  Sorry to be such a nit-picker on the little details, but these are things I've learned at WP:FAC and WP:FAR, and we might as well get them right from the get-go. Besides, I like seeing relatively new editors learn WP:MOS correctly :-)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed, thanks for the advice Xavexgoem 17:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note on citations 

message: The template that includes the vote tally has seen several changes, but the citation has not been updated, and the as of date was removed.  We no longer know what data we are looking at.  Is that final data or preliminary (in which case, it needs an as of date)?  If so, the citation needs to be updated at Template:Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2007‎ and Template:Venezuelan constitutional referendum by state, 2007‎.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 4 December
:I've actually got no info about the tally by state. I don't know where that information came from. The tally of the first report is accurate in the article, however.190.79.58.11 20:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote tally needs to be addressed 

message: I'm beginning a rewrite of the history, process and what the actual referendum proposal was.
All sources agree there were initially 33 changes proposed by Chavez.  To be sorted out:
* VenAnalysis says: 
**Block "A" includes President Chavez's original proposal, as amended by the National Assembly, which would change 33 articles out of the 350 articles in the constitution. Also included in block A are another 13 articles introduced by the National Assembly. Block "B" includes another 26 reform articles proposed by the National Assembly.
*** So, 33 + 13 = 46 in Block A, plus 26 in Block B for total of 72 changes
* BBC says:
** Mr Chavez proposed 33 changes, and the National Assembly, which is composed of his supporters, put forward a further 36 amendments. 
***So, 33 + 36 = 69.  Hello?  VenAnalysis says National Assembly put forward 13+26=39, while BBC says 36, off by 3. BBC here also says 36.  Mercury news also says 69. So, where is VenAnalysis getting the 72?  Just to make things better, Maldive news says 25 (not 26) were added by the National Assembly.  
***Can someone find an El Nacional or El Universal summary of the actual referendum, so we can resolve this from a good source ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JRSP, are you going to be online tonight?  I'm trying to rework some material, but I would like for you to review it before I add it.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I'll check from time to time. BTW here's the source for the (33+13)+23=69 articles. JRSP (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been trying to work all day and have been interrupted a million times; writing this article shouldn't be this hard <grrrr ... > ... I'm settled on the 69 now.  Will try to finish up in the next hour or so.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm with you; IP is confused :-)  We're talking about the November issue, not the December delay.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History and process

message: I got an edit conflict with this Evo Morales addition after massive work; now I see it was sourced to VenAnalysis, does anyone have a reliable source so I can re-add it?  Still working through the list above.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit conflict on Evo Morales

message: I noticed this part under the proposal section:
The proposal also included the creation of a "Popular power" which "isn't born from any kind of vote", changing the principles of Venezuela from "social justice, democracy" to "socialist, anti-imperialist", and changing the army from "National Armed Force" to "Bolivarian Armed Force"; this army would be "patriotic, popular and anti-imperialist".
And I'm wondering if this has any sort of legal force or connects to any concrete proposals or whether it is just rhetoric and if it is rhetoric is in the proposed constitution itself?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in the proposed contitution itself but was not in any preceding proposals. SG2090 (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know; someone else added it, and its source appears to be a  radical far-left interpretation of the proposal, I can't vouch for its accuracy or reliability.  Others will need to decide if it should be included or deleted.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we should not have it if it is a radical far-left proposal. SG2090 (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd be great to get an english cite of all the proposals from the spanish text. atm, none exist aside from those available at counterpunch, VA, etc: all unreliable. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually there is a good ASAID summary, but the same bias claims can be made about their interpretation.  If the VenAnalysis/ZNet interpretation is left in the article (I don't believe it should be), then the ASAID version should be added for balance.  My opinion is that neither should be included, and we should stick to neutral sources, as I had written it before the VenAnalysis text was added. For neutrality, I recommend deleting that paragraph, as the summary I added above the new paragraph is an extract from everything said in all of the reliable sources.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We won't know If this renaming would have gone beside rethoric. President Chavez uses this kind of changes for political ends (take a look at the venezuelan flag, he added one star (it was seven, now it's eight) and he use this aparently rethoric change for political gain (the motto for the Copa America was "an eight star cup", for example). It's highly probable he will use the anti-imperialist part to strenght the fight against USA. By the way, you can find the proposal with no bias here [], in spanish. The articles in question are 328 (the army one) 136 (the popular power one) amd 299 (The Venezuelan principles one) ... now my question, why this three changes are separated? Floreshdez (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, we have the actual proposal linked in the article, but it's a primary source, and we're better off sticking with secondary reliable source summaries of the document (especially since it's so long).  I'm not sure what your question is ??  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The rest of the changes are separted in "bullets" (as Microsoft Word name it, those dots), those 3 changes are in one paragraph ... why? Those changes were equally important in the outcome of the election Floreshdez (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ah, ok, now I understand your question.  Because the bullet list is a summary of reliable, secondary, independent sources, according to WP:V and WP:RS and they are all cited to those sources.  The additional points in the separate paragraph are not sourced to a reliable, secondary source, they come from a biased non-reliable source, and there is consensus here that they should be deleted because they are not reliably sourced points and are not mentioned by reliable sources.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But, why? A summarize secondary source analysis can be biased, but the actual proposal can't be biased. I understand Wikipedia's Verifiability source, asking for secondary source. But in this case, I think is better to stick with the actual reform, don't you? Floreshdez (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No.  First, see WP:V.  Second, the actual reform is much too lengthy to include, and any summary we do of it would be original research (in terms of relevance of what to include and translation).  Wiki reports what independent, secondary reliable sources say about primary sources.  Independent sources have summarized what they consider to be the important points; that's what Wiki reports.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If someone has a reliable source upon which we can base that distinction, I agree, but personally, when there is still SO much work to be done on completing the rest of this article, I'm not going to take my time to read through so much Spanish to sort that out.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about part of the proposal

message: ::Regarding this edit, copy of a talk page note I left for .
Please see the note I left here quite a bit ago.  Those templates are horribly formatted, and destroy the formatting of the main article.  The results should be arranged side by side, or the template should allow for right alignment so text can be added on the left.  I tried, and am unable to make those corrections; I don't "speak HTML", and that template code was removed from the main tally template that was created by someone else.  Adding horribly designed templates that disrupt the flow of the text to the middle of an article that is on the main page is not a good idea, IMO.  I've moved the templates to the bottom, but they still disrupt the entire article, causing the reader to have to scan a lot of info they won't care about in order to reach the sources, etc. at the bottom of the article.  Please help address this if you feel so strongly about including that info in the article, because right now, those templates are truly ugly.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates disrupting flow of text and article

message: Full results are in at http://www.cne.gov.ve/noticiaDetallada.php?id=4354 -- I'll update the election results template on Monday, if noone does it by then. (I'd prefer it if someone else could do it before then, though.) —Nightstallion 14:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to update the template, but the table design contains too much original research; I can't make the numbers add up considering the vote tallies in each block are different, and the double 100% don't make sense, and I don't know which total is being used (Block A or B).  Also, the source doesn't seem to indicate these are final results (only 94% counted), so I'm not sure it's worth the trouble.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full results 

message: This certainly seems interesting:
But by midweek enough information had emerged to conclude that Chávez did, in fact, try to overturn the results. As reported in El Nacional, and confirmed to me by an intelligence source, the Venezuelan military high command virtually threatened him with a coup d'état if he insisted on doing so. Finally, after a late-night phone call from Raúl Isaías Baduel, a budding opposition leader and former Chávez comrade in arms, the president conceded—but with one condition: he demanded his margin of defeat be reduced to a bare minimum in official tallies, so he could save face and appear as a magnanimous democrat in the eyes of the world. . 
DJ CreamityOh Yeah! 20:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, status quo.  It may surprise non-Venezuelans to realize that the military in Venezuela are highly regarded, generally democratic, and still respectful of the people first, even after Chávez's purge of the military. Some sort of content along the lines of the segment above should eventually be added, but more time may be needed to avoid recentism and obtain the most reliable sources, as the story develops. (So far, The Economist link in the article touches upon some of the other undeveloped issues in this article.) As the article currently stands, the magnitude of Chavez's loss isn't made clear; it is the millions of voters who abstained, compared to the number that supported him in previous votes, that demonstrate how large the loss was.  The current article focus on the narrow margin in the vote is a bit misleading.  Seven million people voted for him a year ago, only four million did this time; reliable sources have dealt with this, but this point hasn't yet been developed in the article. The brouhaha that went on election night hasn't been developed yet, nor have the irregularities been discussed (see citation list above).  Not enough hours in the day.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This rumor has been denied by main oposition parties Un Nuevo Tiempo, Primero Justicia, the Venezuelan military high command and the CNE. JRSP (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And of course, that would be included; just as the CIA rumors, which are based on non-reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe, just be sure to attribute the "analysis" to Jorge Castañeda. He's not my concept of neutral, a very polemic man indeed. JRSP (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I'd use the source above anyway; it's a Newsweek "web exclusive", whatever that means.  As I said, I suggest we wait until more reliable sources cover the issue as the story develops.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Newsweek article

message: Interesting stuff, but I'm mostly wondering whether Reuters archives. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about that. I'm almost sure they archive but in any case you can always count on archive.org. (http://www.archive.org ) --JRSP (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Aftermatch" Article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2007. 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/20071124112753/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5hAyrGfE-ZWy2y7T2UdYkNsnzF65gD8T2DTP80 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hAyrGfE-ZWy2y7T2UdYkNsnzF65gD8T2DTP80
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 13:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080109224352/http://www.radiomundial.com.ve/yvke/noticia.php?988 to http://www.radiomundial.com.ve/yvke/noticia.php?988
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071221182904/http://english.eluniversal.com/2007/11/26/en_refco_art_one-person-killed-in_26A1221039.shtml to http://english.eluniversal.com/2007/11/26/en_refco_art_one-person-killed-in_26A1221039.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071130042633/http://economia.eluniversal.com/2007/11/27/pol_art_un-muerto-y-6-herido_614711.shtml to http://economia.eluniversal.com/2007/11/27/pol_art_un-muerto-y-6-herido_614711.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110525130938/http://english.eluniversal.com/2007/11/21/en_pol_art_bolivarian-students_21A1209801.shtml to http://english.eluniversal.com/2007/11/21/en_pol_art_bolivarian-students_21A1209801.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081104074221/http://www.cato.org/special/friedman/goicoechea/ to http://www.cato.org/special/friedman/goicoechea/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified