Controversy with the carmona decree and MCM is not referenced or the exit poll controversy, also the "not a majority of the electorate" has to be referenced if it is official Sumate policy. Flanker 18:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, no problem :-)
1. I added something about the PBS exit polls, which is just cut and paste from multiple places on Wiki now. I'm not sure how it's relevant to the Sumate article (as opposed to the many other places it's been mentioned), but it has been added.
2. On the MCM/Carmona issue, I am loathe to add anything with Venanalysis as a reference. You deleted a reference on the Chavez article, indicating that "Vcrisis is not a primary source but a blog". If VCrisis references are to be deleted, than there are many dubious references in the main Hugo Chávez article. I'm wondering how you distinguish an organization like VenAnalysis from VCrisis, and whether you have a more valid source for the same info about MCM. I don't deny the fact (it was certainly logical that she would/should sign that document, considering her position in Venezuela), just want a better source to quote so as not to introduce biased sources. If I have to add a VenAnalysis source, then I'll also have to object that the article is POV, and we'll never get the tag removed :-) Since you want this info added, do you have a reliable source? Also, since it is entirely logical that she would/should sign that document, I'm really unclear on exactly what you want added, and why you find it controversial, so again, it might be better that you add your own words.
3. On the citation needed that you added, indicating that a reference is needed for more abstention than votes in his favor, I've added the same infoboxes used in the main article. Sandy 00:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I actually like it as it is thanks, as for the Carmonazo and MCM you might want to look at the page I started The Carmona Decree. Flanker 18:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
In Treason and conspiracy charges part
You need to consider that Chavez received 2.000.000 Dollars from the spanish Bilvao-Biscaya Bank for the same purpouse.
Sorry, but this article is totally political spin! Examples:
Ok: The PSB poll is just ridicoulus rubish, why to cite Schoen, he is just a very unintersting and unimportant guy... but now the real however diletantic manipulation: "...according to IndyMedia..." hello? According to all serious Newssources of the world the PSB-polls contradicted all the other opposition, governmental and third parties polls.
Also the talks about "only 35% of the electorate" or "more people absense then..": In a lot of countries, including such famous democracies as Switzerland, Austria, United States, Germany, UK, Austria etc. the turnout is lower and/or the Head of Goverment got far, far less then 35% of the electorate (In a lot of country they even got less than 35% of the votes cast!). The only is therefore totally misleading, its actually even a quite High number.
"Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia" [ [6]] JRSP 07:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
JRSP, I'll wait a bit for you to provide a report that goes along with this list; if you don't have a media report which provides context for the list, I'll remove the sentence. Presenting a list, with no context, is certainly bordering on violating WP:BLP, as there is no explanation or journalistic report whatsoever attached to these allegations. Thanks Sandy 13:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I split a paragraph in order to highlight some material whose relation with Sumate is not clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRSP ( talk • contribs)
The sections on "History" and "Recall" read like anti-Chavez polemics rather than an NPOV encyclopedia. Much of the information is about the recall itself, rather than Sumate or the role of Sumate within these events. AndrewRT - Talk 23:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I still don't understand the distinction you're making. Whether they "promoted" it or not, the referendum in general was held because of Súmate's efforts. What is the concern? Sandy 14:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
User:SuperFlanker insisted that the article cover the PBS exit poll controversy, and tagged the article as POV without it (see first entry on talk page). User:AndrewRT took out the same information, saying the article was POV with it. We need additional opinions: do we add back in the exit poll information or not? Sandy 14:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm baffled! How can an organisation that organised a recall election and then organised a primary to select an opposition presidential candidate possibly be called an impartial NGO? Particularly when they are led by prominent opposition politicians. I don't care what they proclaim themselves to be.
More to the point, if they do claim to be an "impartial" NGO, perhaps there is evidence supporting this which can be published in this article (perhaps under a section on ==Impartiality==?) AndrewRT - Talk 20:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
"Recently, NED announced that it was not only renewing but substantially increasing funding for Súmate (Join Up), the anti-Chávez group closely associated with Venezuela’s traditional political and business elite. Súmate was a main force behind the failed referendum and its principals openly backed the April coup. Typically, Súmate also has received USAID funding, and at higher levels than the NED grants." Carat04 22:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a point of view that might be brought into this discussion (though it might not be appropriate for the article). Chavez version of democracy does not include independent powers, his is really an autocratic movement that subscribes to all the state power being under his hands. Recent events very clearly underline that (i.e. the recent declarations from the energy minister, that were later backed by Chavez himself and several of his ministers), but such authoritarian streak has been evident for many years. Súmate, by the simple act of promoting democracy becomes automatically an opposition force. Chavez-speak tends to hide this difference between being pro-democracy and being against-Chavez. Súmate's efforts are what made the referendum possible, without Súmate it would not have happened. All the research that came afterwards that has raised serious doubts about the referendum results are also a consequence of Súmate's actions. Though saying that Súmate is an 'Opposition' force would be the same as saying that blackboxvoting or any of the other electronic voting action groups are 'Democrat Party' forces. Thu Nov 9 22:25 2006 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.141.137 ( talk • contribs)
In 1999 a NEW Constitution was approved in a referendum, the 1961 constitution was therefore derogated, the constitution wasn't rewritten, it was changed. -- 159.90.10.250 17:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is the most farcically POV article I've seen on wikipedia, crammed full with weasel words and blatantly one-sided descriptions, with little mention of the well-deserved criticism such a group as this is due. It might as well be Sumate's own website. Nwe 01:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Right, but the idea is to discuss and source the high abstention; that was the original citation needed. This article discusses the high abstention, although it extends the context for the abstention to other issues. How do you want to fix your concern? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
From the article,
According to CBS News, Chávez branded the leaders of Súmate, a vote-monitoring group, as "conspirators, coup plotters and lackeys of the U.S. government".
[19]
When I read the CBS article cited, however, this quote never comes up. I'm unable to find another source. If somebody can please fix this, or relink it to the appropriate article, it'd be appreciated.
Diego —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.237.229 ( talk) 18:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
After years of criticism this page is still not an article about an organisation but a Propaganda-Site in favor of the goals of an Organisation. If it does not better in a month a I gonna stub it to just facts about Sumate and its work. -- 80.219.146.186 ( talk) 18:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Sandy, WP:ELNO item 13 explicitly says "A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject". That Súmate is in the table of contents of the report does not justify the inclusion of the external link. JRSP ( talk) 18:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
This seemingly spreading belief that questionable additions should stand whilst someone might eventually sort them out should be stopped. Questionable additions can and often should be removed. Moving to the talk page or possibly elsewhere (eg userspace draft) may be helpful - but it depends on the content and the context. Rd232 talk 23:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not very sure if WP:BLP1E applies to these cases but perhaps the articles on María Corina Machado and Alejandro Plaz should be merged here, Almost all information in those articles is related to Súmate. JRSP ( talk) 00:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I've always tended to interpret BLP1E liberally - if there isn't much to say about a person separate from the Thing They're Known For Which Has Its Own Article, then it makes sense to merge. In these cases, there's just about enough to justify separate articles, but I can see why JRSP suggested a merge and I wouldn't strongly oppose it if people wanted that. (Which apparently they don't.) Rd232 talk 09:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
It is remarkable that the results for 1998 and 2000 elections show the turnout rate, but that statistic is not reflected for the 1993 and earlier presidential elections. This makes it impossible to substantiate that such a thing was unprecedented. The raw number of votes cast in 1993 was in fact smaller than in 1998. Maintaining the same rate of voter turnout would suggest a 12% population increase. A better voter turnout in 1993 would suggest a higher population growth. So, in the absence of evidence to the contrary let's just say that voter turnout remained the same. Thus Chavez in 1998 did indeed win with the vote of 35% of the electorate, but by applying the same reasoning Caldera in 1993 won with 30% of 64% = 19% of the electorate. Eclecticology ( talk) 09:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Controversy with the carmona decree and MCM is not referenced or the exit poll controversy, also the "not a majority of the electorate" has to be referenced if it is official Sumate policy. Flanker 18:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, no problem :-)
1. I added something about the PBS exit polls, which is just cut and paste from multiple places on Wiki now. I'm not sure how it's relevant to the Sumate article (as opposed to the many other places it's been mentioned), but it has been added.
2. On the MCM/Carmona issue, I am loathe to add anything with Venanalysis as a reference. You deleted a reference on the Chavez article, indicating that "Vcrisis is not a primary source but a blog". If VCrisis references are to be deleted, than there are many dubious references in the main Hugo Chávez article. I'm wondering how you distinguish an organization like VenAnalysis from VCrisis, and whether you have a more valid source for the same info about MCM. I don't deny the fact (it was certainly logical that she would/should sign that document, considering her position in Venezuela), just want a better source to quote so as not to introduce biased sources. If I have to add a VenAnalysis source, then I'll also have to object that the article is POV, and we'll never get the tag removed :-) Since you want this info added, do you have a reliable source? Also, since it is entirely logical that she would/should sign that document, I'm really unclear on exactly what you want added, and why you find it controversial, so again, it might be better that you add your own words.
3. On the citation needed that you added, indicating that a reference is needed for more abstention than votes in his favor, I've added the same infoboxes used in the main article. Sandy 00:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I actually like it as it is thanks, as for the Carmonazo and MCM you might want to look at the page I started The Carmona Decree. Flanker 18:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
In Treason and conspiracy charges part
You need to consider that Chavez received 2.000.000 Dollars from the spanish Bilvao-Biscaya Bank for the same purpouse.
Sorry, but this article is totally political spin! Examples:
Ok: The PSB poll is just ridicoulus rubish, why to cite Schoen, he is just a very unintersting and unimportant guy... but now the real however diletantic manipulation: "...according to IndyMedia..." hello? According to all serious Newssources of the world the PSB-polls contradicted all the other opposition, governmental and third parties polls.
Also the talks about "only 35% of the electorate" or "more people absense then..": In a lot of countries, including such famous democracies as Switzerland, Austria, United States, Germany, UK, Austria etc. the turnout is lower and/or the Head of Goverment got far, far less then 35% of the electorate (In a lot of country they even got less than 35% of the votes cast!). The only is therefore totally misleading, its actually even a quite High number.
"Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia" [ [6]] JRSP 07:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
JRSP, I'll wait a bit for you to provide a report that goes along with this list; if you don't have a media report which provides context for the list, I'll remove the sentence. Presenting a list, with no context, is certainly bordering on violating WP:BLP, as there is no explanation or journalistic report whatsoever attached to these allegations. Thanks Sandy 13:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I split a paragraph in order to highlight some material whose relation with Sumate is not clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRSP ( talk • contribs)
The sections on "History" and "Recall" read like anti-Chavez polemics rather than an NPOV encyclopedia. Much of the information is about the recall itself, rather than Sumate or the role of Sumate within these events. AndrewRT - Talk 23:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I still don't understand the distinction you're making. Whether they "promoted" it or not, the referendum in general was held because of Súmate's efforts. What is the concern? Sandy 14:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
User:SuperFlanker insisted that the article cover the PBS exit poll controversy, and tagged the article as POV without it (see first entry on talk page). User:AndrewRT took out the same information, saying the article was POV with it. We need additional opinions: do we add back in the exit poll information or not? Sandy 14:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm baffled! How can an organisation that organised a recall election and then organised a primary to select an opposition presidential candidate possibly be called an impartial NGO? Particularly when they are led by prominent opposition politicians. I don't care what they proclaim themselves to be.
More to the point, if they do claim to be an "impartial" NGO, perhaps there is evidence supporting this which can be published in this article (perhaps under a section on ==Impartiality==?) AndrewRT - Talk 20:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
"Recently, NED announced that it was not only renewing but substantially increasing funding for Súmate (Join Up), the anti-Chávez group closely associated with Venezuela’s traditional political and business elite. Súmate was a main force behind the failed referendum and its principals openly backed the April coup. Typically, Súmate also has received USAID funding, and at higher levels than the NED grants." Carat04 22:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a point of view that might be brought into this discussion (though it might not be appropriate for the article). Chavez version of democracy does not include independent powers, his is really an autocratic movement that subscribes to all the state power being under his hands. Recent events very clearly underline that (i.e. the recent declarations from the energy minister, that were later backed by Chavez himself and several of his ministers), but such authoritarian streak has been evident for many years. Súmate, by the simple act of promoting democracy becomes automatically an opposition force. Chavez-speak tends to hide this difference between being pro-democracy and being against-Chavez. Súmate's efforts are what made the referendum possible, without Súmate it would not have happened. All the research that came afterwards that has raised serious doubts about the referendum results are also a consequence of Súmate's actions. Though saying that Súmate is an 'Opposition' force would be the same as saying that blackboxvoting or any of the other electronic voting action groups are 'Democrat Party' forces. Thu Nov 9 22:25 2006 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.141.137 ( talk • contribs)
In 1999 a NEW Constitution was approved in a referendum, the 1961 constitution was therefore derogated, the constitution wasn't rewritten, it was changed. -- 159.90.10.250 17:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is the most farcically POV article I've seen on wikipedia, crammed full with weasel words and blatantly one-sided descriptions, with little mention of the well-deserved criticism such a group as this is due. It might as well be Sumate's own website. Nwe 01:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Right, but the idea is to discuss and source the high abstention; that was the original citation needed. This article discusses the high abstention, although it extends the context for the abstention to other issues. How do you want to fix your concern? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
From the article,
According to CBS News, Chávez branded the leaders of Súmate, a vote-monitoring group, as "conspirators, coup plotters and lackeys of the U.S. government".
[19]
When I read the CBS article cited, however, this quote never comes up. I'm unable to find another source. If somebody can please fix this, or relink it to the appropriate article, it'd be appreciated.
Diego —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.237.229 ( talk) 18:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
After years of criticism this page is still not an article about an organisation but a Propaganda-Site in favor of the goals of an Organisation. If it does not better in a month a I gonna stub it to just facts about Sumate and its work. -- 80.219.146.186 ( talk) 18:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Sandy, WP:ELNO item 13 explicitly says "A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject". That Súmate is in the table of contents of the report does not justify the inclusion of the external link. JRSP ( talk) 18:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
This seemingly spreading belief that questionable additions should stand whilst someone might eventually sort them out should be stopped. Questionable additions can and often should be removed. Moving to the talk page or possibly elsewhere (eg userspace draft) may be helpful - but it depends on the content and the context. Rd232 talk 23:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not very sure if WP:BLP1E applies to these cases but perhaps the articles on María Corina Machado and Alejandro Plaz should be merged here, Almost all information in those articles is related to Súmate. JRSP ( talk) 00:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I've always tended to interpret BLP1E liberally - if there isn't much to say about a person separate from the Thing They're Known For Which Has Its Own Article, then it makes sense to merge. In these cases, there's just about enough to justify separate articles, but I can see why JRSP suggested a merge and I wouldn't strongly oppose it if people wanted that. (Which apparently they don't.) Rd232 talk 09:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
It is remarkable that the results for 1998 and 2000 elections show the turnout rate, but that statistic is not reflected for the 1993 and earlier presidential elections. This makes it impossible to substantiate that such a thing was unprecedented. The raw number of votes cast in 1993 was in fact smaller than in 1998. Maintaining the same rate of voter turnout would suggest a 12% population increase. A better voter turnout in 1993 would suggest a higher population growth. So, in the absence of evidence to the contrary let's just say that voter turnout remained the same. Thus Chavez in 1998 did indeed win with the vote of 35% of the electorate, but by applying the same reasoning Caldera in 1993 won with 30% of 64% = 19% of the electorate. Eclecticology ( talk) 09:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)