This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite press release}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |accessdae=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Edit as you'd like. Needed cites: full proposals, reliable CIA info, over-all spirit of demonstrations
(Please add to this list so we can start writing.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
Is there a way to make sure that that bloomberg citations stays on the web? It provides loads of context (for me, at least) Xavexgoem ( talk) 15:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
There Should be a good watch on this page for Venezuela agents editing it for thier dictator. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
66.66.116.58 (
talk) 23:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone deleted the last two paragraphs, and edited the one on opposition protests to make it absolutely ideological over factual. I have no problems with edits if they are done to make the article more neutral, no one likes going to wikipedia to read ideologically ridden drivle passed off as information, much less news. If there are any additions please note here why, and if any deletions do so as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ira Weaver ( talk • contribs) 02:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Since those deleting and re editing this page continue to do so anonomously and without reason I'll assume its vandalism. The last two paragraphs are nuetral, based on facts and are absolutely directly relavent to the election. There is nothing POV about putting them up, or maybe I'm wrong and they violate some rule of sorts, in which case make clear the purpose and reason. Ira Weaver 15:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The so called questionable source is not so questionable in this article, they quote Reuters (as well as take the pictures from them) Information of the event, students quoted were those directly involved, and an un edited video was among the sources, not to mention that members of their own organization were present at the shooting therefore making it legitimate for them to discuss it and be counted as a reliable source. As for the blog sources, absolutely true, the section should be removed. Your absolutely right that the Gaurdian didnt report it, again, a mistake, I'll find the the other news group that did, (it has totaly slipped my mind), however that simply means they reported a proven false story, and should then be clearly refferred to as a claim and made clear of the real event, correction of the story. Ira Weaver 09:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It is, the mistaken sources have been removed. There are two specific sources here which are from PSUV and the International Marxist Current. The first is not bias, its reporting what the 'intended' purpose of the vote by the people who enacted the vote. Its not intended to be bias, nor is it controversial to say that the purpose of the election is to implement a form of socialism, therefore its not an "unreliable source" the second source by IMC I explained in LENGTH why it is legitimate in the context, please read the section in the talk page. Ira Weaver 19:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
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
Eva Golinger is the person who broke the story, she isnt a member of PSUV or the bolivarian movement, she's a respected lawyer and journalist, she broke the story of the connection between the US and the Coup plotters in 2002 through the National Endownment for Democracy, and has actively pursued the matter of US involvment in Venezuela, it would only be natural that she would be the one to break this story to the non-Venezuelan press. I dont feel this should be dismissed out of hand because of a deep seeded conviction by some that anyone not involved or sympathetic to the opposition are liers and propagandists. Statements, stories, and facts all over Venezuelan related pages are linked to sources like Globovision, National Review, The Wall Street Journal, the U.S. State Department, etc. In all fairness you wouldnt advocate removing whole sections from the Iraq War because the sole references were from the US State Department or organizations and people 'percieved to be sympathetic' to the U.S., the same I would imagine applies here . It sure isnt ethical to omit the existence of the 'claim' outright for these excuses either. We dont, and should not, simply act to omit them, I can see maybe reworking a few sentences to use the term "claim" though even this would be a POV response since the criteria you ask for is quite uneven, it seems to be considered a legitemate event it need be covered by major mainstream media outlets, the kind that have a vested interest in misinforming, on clearly ideological grounds. So I would agree to add to the paragraph somewthing along the lines of "no major media outlets have discussed the claim" or "the claim remains to be verified by mainstream news agencies both in Venezuela and the international press". Ira Weaver 11:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph had some few errors, and they were corrected. I’ve added a link to the proposed intent of the constitutional changes, the website to PSUV and its explaination for the the reforms, it is in no way POV to state their proposed intent. On the paragraph about the meeting with trade unionists, I’ve added the link to the information, and clarified the sentence. Note, the International Marxist Tendancy and its Venezuelan affiliate covered the event.
I’ve re-attached the full paragraph on the demonstrations as well as added information on the latest demostrations. My key reasons for doing this are: The information is completely relavent, directly related and un-ideological. The information is uncontroversial, they are facts, and placed here to give the full scope of the run up to the election, just as any other election has detailed information on the run up to those election (see for example Sierra Leonean general election, 2007, Greek legislative election, 2007, Australian federal election, 2007) and should then not be ommited. devoting a whole separate page to these demonstrations seems to me unneccesary since they are a direct extension of this event., it should be discussed if the page 2007 Venezuelan demonstrations should be deleted.
I have re-instated the last paragraph relating to the ‘claimed’ CIA memo, removed near all the previous sources, linked independent news sources NOT tied to PSUV nor ideological. However I havent been able to get a hold of how to add them properly to the “references” section, can anyone help do this? Ira Weaver 14:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
If anyone have any further greivences about the edits, the page or the sources please refer first to the Talk Page here state clearly what greivances then edit.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ira Weaver ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 1 December 2007 UTC
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)
It is, the mistaken sources have been removed. There are two specific sources here which are from PSUV and the International Marxist Current. The first is not bias, its reporting what the 'intended' purpose of the vote by the people who enacted the vote. Its not intended to be bias, nor is it controversial to say that the purpose of the election is to implement a form of socialism, therefore its not an "unreliable source" the second source by IMC I explained in LENGTH why it is legitimate in the context, please read the section in the talk page. Ira Weaver 19:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
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 [8], clearly wearing shirts in support of the SI vote, and heres a picture of the front of the theatre on an empty day [9]. 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. [1].
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. [2].
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)
Well my arguement is that, that page should be deleted (2007 Venezuelan Demonstrations) since its no more than a direct extension of this event, not a stand alone event, the demonstrations arose as a result of the decision to have a vote on the constitutional amendments, and are thus are a direct result, and entirely related to this subject, and dont require a page of its own. And that perticular event (the riot at the University campus) is factual, in which there own members were contacted and present at the scene, they quote andf reference Reuters and other sources in that particular article as well. Its not one sided because that position alludes something else happened, of which there is no proof other than a few biased reports which omit alot of verifiable information (not the least among them an un-edited fifteen minute tape of the events). Ira Weaver 20:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
--==CIA conspiracy theory, POV == Decidedly one-sided version added in spite of discussion above, so I've added a POV tag. Please balance the text with respect to WP:UNDUE and reliable sources. Keep in mind that Chavez did this before, with the Wayne Madsen conspiracy theory during the 2002 events. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
POV? the paragraph is carefully worded to keep nuetrality and not try to legitimize the claim. Please elaborate your claim of POV in detail or the banner goes down. Ira Weaver 21:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
References
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)
The previous editor tacked one sentence on to an entire POV paragraph about a CIA conspiracy theory, but didn't cite the one sentence, although it can easily be cited to dozens of sources. Jersey, adding a cite tag to the one sentence and/or expanding that section rather than deleting the one sentence of easily sourced balance would be good NPOVing. [10] Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 08:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 08:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Treybien, why are you deleting date links that conform with WP:MOSDATE; [14] 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)
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)
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)
See WP:MOS#Images, avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other. That includes sandwiching text between images and infoboxes. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The term Article 70 is introduced in the text but never defined in context. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
This "complete list" just added looks like a potential copyvio, which we can't have linked from the main page. It is also sourced to two unreliable sources. Needs to be removed and returned to a summary. This is an encylopedia, after all. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The most compact way to put the full list would be an external link to a reliable source (could be a primary source for this case). But I think the article must summarize the most notable points of the reform. I think the BBC article linked above gives a balanced view including controversial points as well as more widely accepted proposals like lowering the voting age, for instance. JRSP 19:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
This is the full text of the proposal from the CNE site [17] JRSP 00:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
More issues: Is the ex-wife comment particularly relevant, compared to ex-defense minister comment? Seems far too personal, imo. Preliminary process is problematic and all over the place: approval process, protests, school riot, trade talks, more protests, ex-wife, ex-minister. Instead: approvals placed in proposed modification (makes sense to me), protests (small ref to school?), opinions; and rename that bit Protests (or anything but preliminary process until we have more on the preliminary process). Remove the trade bit: the cit is laughable and not relevant considering the small number of proposals we already have listed in the article. Xavexgoem 15:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
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. [18]-- Jersey Devil 20:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I dont uderstand why the article is expressed as biased or polarized. It explains that there were allegations of a cia document found however goes on to explain that it was considered to be a fake and the timing was suspicious. And you are wrong this is why wikipedia is such a great tool, power to the people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.185.183 ( talk) 20:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this section has much more info than needed, and that a link should be made to . Here is what I would view as approaching ad nauseum:
"It detailed the CIA’s supposed role in the run up to the December election. It claims over $8 million in the past month to the opposition, transferred through USAID. The document talked about preventive measures taken against the proposed reforms such as "take to the streets and protest with violent, disruptive actions across the nation", "criticize and discredit the National Elections Council" as well as to "coordinate these activities with Ravell & Globovision and international press agencies"."
It...It...It... To my mind, this is an unnecessary (there could be a link instead) list of things that if one were to infer a motive for it; to take up space for 'one side' of an argument. I'm not sure how much info should be in an article like this. However, relative to the size of the entire article, I think this is just too much and a section (maybe the section I quoted?) should be taken out, and a link to Operation Pliers be put in its place...very soon (as this is 'hot news'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.236.67 ( talk) 08:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Much better, X, but I edited to balance per WP:UNDUE; we don't give two sentences to a wacky conspiracy theory furthered by one iffy publication, and one brief response when multiple reliable sources have dealt with the issue. Both sides of the discussion are more in balance now. And it should be possible to replace counterpunch with something less biased; remember, the same thing happened in 2002 with the irresponsible Wayne Madsen incident, when the rumors were largely furthered by one publication. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
The article is cleaner now and perhaps we can begin to build a real article. However, I still strongly disagree with exercising the entire point of the referendum from the lead. If this is re-instated, I'm ready to remove the POV tag, and hopefully we can begin to write based on consensus rather than deletions and reverts. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
Wait, you are telling me that no one around here is actually Venezuelan? Ok, so ,about sources. These are very recent news and to be honest with you, Venezuela isn't really advanced in what the internet community aboards. The most I can find is on television and radio. www.globovision.com is the webpage of a venezuelan oppositionist tv channel. Venezolana de Television is a venezuelan officialist television channel (Google the webpage, I don't know it). El Universal and El Nacional are both oppositionist newspapers, both have webpages. Tal Cual is an officialist newspaper, webpage is http://www.talcualdigital.com/ . These are the most reliable sources right now. All are on spanish, unfortunately. I can traduce some of them for you, but I frankly have no time to do all. And search terms, searching Referendum 2007 and skipping to the Venezuelan results should get you all the information about it. Otherwise, most of the sources I listed you have a see recent news system. Everything from Saturday to Monday should have news about it. Sunday should have everything about the actual process of the referendum. Images I admit that they are hard to find.
About the denial of entry of the witnesses http://www.el-nacional.com/www/site/detalle_noticia.php?q=nodo/4987 (Venezuelan press, Spanish) 55 arrested for electoral crime: http://politica.eluniversal.com/2007/12/04/pol_art_se-incrementa-a-55-l_624441.shtml (Venezuelan press, Spanish)
You should be able to find all the things I told you about in the sites and sources I listed. 190.79.58.11 20:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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'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:
Block A proposed modifying 46=33+13 articles and Block B, 23 not 26.
JRSP (
talk) 23:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've been distracted by my talk page lighting up all day, but I've got a draft here. I would
I'm not saying this is finished yet, but it's more comprehensive than what is there now, particularly for non-Venezuelans who don't know the process. Also, I don't know why the current text says the final approval was Nov 3rd, when the news reports are Nov 2nd. I couldn't source the final line of the proposed changes, so I removed it, leaving only what was mentioned in those 3 sources, which seem to cover most of the points. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
JRSP ( talk) 02:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
No, Sandy, they're talking about November 2, they refer to the approval of the proposal in 3rd discussion by the Assembly. The proposal was approved and presented to the CNE on Nov 2 [22]. CNE aproved the referendum the same day "casi a la medianoche de este viernes" (Nov 2) [23] so I think the November 3 date is just wrong. JRSP ( talk) 02:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone else start adding to the Response section? We need to expand domestic and international reactions; I added only a few obvious and easy to find ones. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Here are some sources: mercopress.com has a nice summary but I don't know if it is a RS, they look fine but I had never heard about them. Also market reactions, OAS, and Brazil.
JRSP ( talk) 11:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
PS, a note for X on student issues; one way to write the content you want to write may be to focus on beefing up an completing 2007 Venezuelan demonstrations, and then we can summarize that article back to this article. Working there will allow you an easier learning curve, as that article isn't on the mainpage and you'll have more leeway to work :-) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I've reconsolidated the "work to be done still" lists at the top of the talk page: I have a full day and a lot on my plate, so I'm sure hoping someone else will start to tackle the list. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
If we go this way, we'll end up mentioning that Caracas would have been known as "queen of the Waraira-Repano". I think the guideline should be that notable points of the proposal should be those highlighted by most reliable sources. JRSP ( talk) 19:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Concerning proposal: might it be best to add what were Chavez's initial proposals, and what the NA added onto it? For example, sexual orientation and work week is (iirc) something the NA added. Xavexgoem ( talk) 16:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
[27].
DJ Creamity Oh Yeah! 20:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Jack Daniel, Frank (3-1-2008).
"Venezuela's Chavez reshuffles cabinet afterdefeat".
Reuters. Retrieved 3-1-2008. {{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
Interesting stuff, but I'm mostly wondering whether Reuters archives. Xavexgoem ( talk) 04:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2007. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@ WMrapids: Could you please mention how did you get the recently introduced information? Both links are dead and Web Archive doesn't throw any results: [34] [35]. NoonIcarus ( talk) 20:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite press release}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |accessdae=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Edit as you'd like. Needed cites: full proposals, reliable CIA info, over-all spirit of demonstrations
(Please add to this list so we can start writing.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
Is there a way to make sure that that bloomberg citations stays on the web? It provides loads of context (for me, at least) Xavexgoem ( talk) 15:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
There Should be a good watch on this page for Venezuela agents editing it for thier dictator. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
66.66.116.58 (
talk) 23:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone deleted the last two paragraphs, and edited the one on opposition protests to make it absolutely ideological over factual. I have no problems with edits if they are done to make the article more neutral, no one likes going to wikipedia to read ideologically ridden drivle passed off as information, much less news. If there are any additions please note here why, and if any deletions do so as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ira Weaver ( talk • contribs) 02:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Since those deleting and re editing this page continue to do so anonomously and without reason I'll assume its vandalism. The last two paragraphs are nuetral, based on facts and are absolutely directly relavent to the election. There is nothing POV about putting them up, or maybe I'm wrong and they violate some rule of sorts, in which case make clear the purpose and reason. Ira Weaver 15:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The so called questionable source is not so questionable in this article, they quote Reuters (as well as take the pictures from them) Information of the event, students quoted were those directly involved, and an un edited video was among the sources, not to mention that members of their own organization were present at the shooting therefore making it legitimate for them to discuss it and be counted as a reliable source. As for the blog sources, absolutely true, the section should be removed. Your absolutely right that the Gaurdian didnt report it, again, a mistake, I'll find the the other news group that did, (it has totaly slipped my mind), however that simply means they reported a proven false story, and should then be clearly refferred to as a claim and made clear of the real event, correction of the story. Ira Weaver 09:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It is, the mistaken sources have been removed. There are two specific sources here which are from PSUV and the International Marxist Current. The first is not bias, its reporting what the 'intended' purpose of the vote by the people who enacted the vote. Its not intended to be bias, nor is it controversial to say that the purpose of the election is to implement a form of socialism, therefore its not an "unreliable source" the second source by IMC I explained in LENGTH why it is legitimate in the context, please read the section in the talk page. Ira Weaver 19:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
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
Eva Golinger is the person who broke the story, she isnt a member of PSUV or the bolivarian movement, she's a respected lawyer and journalist, she broke the story of the connection between the US and the Coup plotters in 2002 through the National Endownment for Democracy, and has actively pursued the matter of US involvment in Venezuela, it would only be natural that she would be the one to break this story to the non-Venezuelan press. I dont feel this should be dismissed out of hand because of a deep seeded conviction by some that anyone not involved or sympathetic to the opposition are liers and propagandists. Statements, stories, and facts all over Venezuelan related pages are linked to sources like Globovision, National Review, The Wall Street Journal, the U.S. State Department, etc. In all fairness you wouldnt advocate removing whole sections from the Iraq War because the sole references were from the US State Department or organizations and people 'percieved to be sympathetic' to the U.S., the same I would imagine applies here . It sure isnt ethical to omit the existence of the 'claim' outright for these excuses either. We dont, and should not, simply act to omit them, I can see maybe reworking a few sentences to use the term "claim" though even this would be a POV response since the criteria you ask for is quite uneven, it seems to be considered a legitemate event it need be covered by major mainstream media outlets, the kind that have a vested interest in misinforming, on clearly ideological grounds. So I would agree to add to the paragraph somewthing along the lines of "no major media outlets have discussed the claim" or "the claim remains to be verified by mainstream news agencies both in Venezuela and the international press". Ira Weaver 11:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph had some few errors, and they were corrected. I’ve added a link to the proposed intent of the constitutional changes, the website to PSUV and its explaination for the the reforms, it is in no way POV to state their proposed intent. On the paragraph about the meeting with trade unionists, I’ve added the link to the information, and clarified the sentence. Note, the International Marxist Tendancy and its Venezuelan affiliate covered the event.
I’ve re-attached the full paragraph on the demonstrations as well as added information on the latest demostrations. My key reasons for doing this are: The information is completely relavent, directly related and un-ideological. The information is uncontroversial, they are facts, and placed here to give the full scope of the run up to the election, just as any other election has detailed information on the run up to those election (see for example Sierra Leonean general election, 2007, Greek legislative election, 2007, Australian federal election, 2007) and should then not be ommited. devoting a whole separate page to these demonstrations seems to me unneccesary since they are a direct extension of this event., it should be discussed if the page 2007 Venezuelan demonstrations should be deleted.
I have re-instated the last paragraph relating to the ‘claimed’ CIA memo, removed near all the previous sources, linked independent news sources NOT tied to PSUV nor ideological. However I havent been able to get a hold of how to add them properly to the “references” section, can anyone help do this? Ira Weaver 14:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
If anyone have any further greivences about the edits, the page or the sources please refer first to the Talk Page here state clearly what greivances then edit.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ira Weaver ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 1 December 2007 UTC
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)
It is, the mistaken sources have been removed. There are two specific sources here which are from PSUV and the International Marxist Current. The first is not bias, its reporting what the 'intended' purpose of the vote by the people who enacted the vote. Its not intended to be bias, nor is it controversial to say that the purpose of the election is to implement a form of socialism, therefore its not an "unreliable source" the second source by IMC I explained in LENGTH why it is legitimate in the context, please read the section in the talk page. Ira Weaver 19:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
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 [8], clearly wearing shirts in support of the SI vote, and heres a picture of the front of the theatre on an empty day [9]. 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. [1].
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. [2].
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)
Well my arguement is that, that page should be deleted (2007 Venezuelan Demonstrations) since its no more than a direct extension of this event, not a stand alone event, the demonstrations arose as a result of the decision to have a vote on the constitutional amendments, and are thus are a direct result, and entirely related to this subject, and dont require a page of its own. And that perticular event (the riot at the University campus) is factual, in which there own members were contacted and present at the scene, they quote andf reference Reuters and other sources in that particular article as well. Its not one sided because that position alludes something else happened, of which there is no proof other than a few biased reports which omit alot of verifiable information (not the least among them an un-edited fifteen minute tape of the events). Ira Weaver 20:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
--==CIA conspiracy theory, POV == Decidedly one-sided version added in spite of discussion above, so I've added a POV tag. Please balance the text with respect to WP:UNDUE and reliable sources. Keep in mind that Chavez did this before, with the Wayne Madsen conspiracy theory during the 2002 events. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
POV? the paragraph is carefully worded to keep nuetrality and not try to legitimize the claim. Please elaborate your claim of POV in detail or the banner goes down. Ira Weaver 21:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
References
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)
The previous editor tacked one sentence on to an entire POV paragraph about a CIA conspiracy theory, but didn't cite the one sentence, although it can easily be cited to dozens of sources. Jersey, adding a cite tag to the one sentence and/or expanding that section rather than deleting the one sentence of easily sourced balance would be good NPOVing. [10] Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 08:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 08:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Treybien, why are you deleting date links that conform with WP:MOSDATE; [14] 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)
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)
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)
See WP:MOS#Images, avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other. That includes sandwiching text between images and infoboxes. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The term Article 70 is introduced in the text but never defined in context. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
This "complete list" just added looks like a potential copyvio, which we can't have linked from the main page. It is also sourced to two unreliable sources. Needs to be removed and returned to a summary. This is an encylopedia, after all. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The most compact way to put the full list would be an external link to a reliable source (could be a primary source for this case). But I think the article must summarize the most notable points of the reform. I think the BBC article linked above gives a balanced view including controversial points as well as more widely accepted proposals like lowering the voting age, for instance. JRSP 19:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
This is the full text of the proposal from the CNE site [17] JRSP 00:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
More issues: Is the ex-wife comment particularly relevant, compared to ex-defense minister comment? Seems far too personal, imo. Preliminary process is problematic and all over the place: approval process, protests, school riot, trade talks, more protests, ex-wife, ex-minister. Instead: approvals placed in proposed modification (makes sense to me), protests (small ref to school?), opinions; and rename that bit Protests (or anything but preliminary process until we have more on the preliminary process). Remove the trade bit: the cit is laughable and not relevant considering the small number of proposals we already have listed in the article. Xavexgoem 15:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
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. [18]-- Jersey Devil 20:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I dont uderstand why the article is expressed as biased or polarized. It explains that there were allegations of a cia document found however goes on to explain that it was considered to be a fake and the timing was suspicious. And you are wrong this is why wikipedia is such a great tool, power to the people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.185.183 ( talk) 20:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this section has much more info than needed, and that a link should be made to . Here is what I would view as approaching ad nauseum:
"It detailed the CIA’s supposed role in the run up to the December election. It claims over $8 million in the past month to the opposition, transferred through USAID. The document talked about preventive measures taken against the proposed reforms such as "take to the streets and protest with violent, disruptive actions across the nation", "criticize and discredit the National Elections Council" as well as to "coordinate these activities with Ravell & Globovision and international press agencies"."
It...It...It... To my mind, this is an unnecessary (there could be a link instead) list of things that if one were to infer a motive for it; to take up space for 'one side' of an argument. I'm not sure how much info should be in an article like this. However, relative to the size of the entire article, I think this is just too much and a section (maybe the section I quoted?) should be taken out, and a link to Operation Pliers be put in its place...very soon (as this is 'hot news'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.236.67 ( talk) 08:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Much better, X, but I edited to balance per WP:UNDUE; we don't give two sentences to a wacky conspiracy theory furthered by one iffy publication, and one brief response when multiple reliable sources have dealt with the issue. Both sides of the discussion are more in balance now. And it should be possible to replace counterpunch with something less biased; remember, the same thing happened in 2002 with the irresponsible Wayne Madsen incident, when the rumors were largely furthered by one publication. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
The article is cleaner now and perhaps we can begin to build a real article. However, I still strongly disagree with exercising the entire point of the referendum from the lead. If this is re-instated, I'm ready to remove the POV tag, and hopefully we can begin to write based on consensus rather than deletions and reverts. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
Wait, you are telling me that no one around here is actually Venezuelan? Ok, so ,about sources. These are very recent news and to be honest with you, Venezuela isn't really advanced in what the internet community aboards. The most I can find is on television and radio. www.globovision.com is the webpage of a venezuelan oppositionist tv channel. Venezolana de Television is a venezuelan officialist television channel (Google the webpage, I don't know it). El Universal and El Nacional are both oppositionist newspapers, both have webpages. Tal Cual is an officialist newspaper, webpage is http://www.talcualdigital.com/ . These are the most reliable sources right now. All are on spanish, unfortunately. I can traduce some of them for you, but I frankly have no time to do all. And search terms, searching Referendum 2007 and skipping to the Venezuelan results should get you all the information about it. Otherwise, most of the sources I listed you have a see recent news system. Everything from Saturday to Monday should have news about it. Sunday should have everything about the actual process of the referendum. Images I admit that they are hard to find.
About the denial of entry of the witnesses http://www.el-nacional.com/www/site/detalle_noticia.php?q=nodo/4987 (Venezuelan press, Spanish) 55 arrested for electoral crime: http://politica.eluniversal.com/2007/12/04/pol_art_se-incrementa-a-55-l_624441.shtml (Venezuelan press, Spanish)
You should be able to find all the things I told you about in the sites and sources I listed. 190.79.58.11 20:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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'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:
Block A proposed modifying 46=33+13 articles and Block B, 23 not 26.
JRSP (
talk) 23:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've been distracted by my talk page lighting up all day, but I've got a draft here. I would
I'm not saying this is finished yet, but it's more comprehensive than what is there now, particularly for non-Venezuelans who don't know the process. Also, I don't know why the current text says the final approval was Nov 3rd, when the news reports are Nov 2nd. I couldn't source the final line of the proposed changes, so I removed it, leaving only what was mentioned in those 3 sources, which seem to cover most of the points. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
JRSP ( talk) 02:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
No, Sandy, they're talking about November 2, they refer to the approval of the proposal in 3rd discussion by the Assembly. The proposal was approved and presented to the CNE on Nov 2 [22]. CNE aproved the referendum the same day "casi a la medianoche de este viernes" (Nov 2) [23] so I think the November 3 date is just wrong. JRSP ( talk) 02:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone else start adding to the Response section? We need to expand domestic and international reactions; I added only a few obvious and easy to find ones. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Here are some sources: mercopress.com has a nice summary but I don't know if it is a RS, they look fine but I had never heard about them. Also market reactions, OAS, and Brazil.
JRSP ( talk) 11:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
PS, a note for X on student issues; one way to write the content you want to write may be to focus on beefing up an completing 2007 Venezuelan demonstrations, and then we can summarize that article back to this article. Working there will allow you an easier learning curve, as that article isn't on the mainpage and you'll have more leeway to work :-) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I've reconsolidated the "work to be done still" lists at the top of the talk page: I have a full day and a lot on my plate, so I'm sure hoping someone else will start to tackle the list. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
If we go this way, we'll end up mentioning that Caracas would have been known as "queen of the Waraira-Repano". I think the guideline should be that notable points of the proposal should be those highlighted by most reliable sources. JRSP ( talk) 19:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Concerning proposal: might it be best to add what were Chavez's initial proposals, and what the NA added onto it? For example, sexual orientation and work week is (iirc) something the NA added. Xavexgoem ( talk) 16:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
[27].
DJ Creamity Oh Yeah! 20:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Jack Daniel, Frank (3-1-2008).
"Venezuela's Chavez reshuffles cabinet afterdefeat".
Reuters. Retrieved 3-1-2008. {{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
Interesting stuff, but I'm mostly wondering whether Reuters archives. Xavexgoem ( talk) 04:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2007. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@ WMrapids: Could you please mention how did you get the recently introduced information? Both links are dead and Web Archive doesn't throw any results: [34] [35]. NoonIcarus ( talk) 20:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)