This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2017 Venezuelan Constituent Assembly election 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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Hinterlaces is often described as being "a pollster linked to the chavismo" ( PanAm Post). We previously had issues with including the GIS XXI and ICS surveys since they also used highly slanted data. The Bolivarian government has often used the strategy of fake polls.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 00:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
SirKeplan, I have softened my position of Hinterlaces since it seems like an outlier among the other polls, so its position appears obvious. However, the source of the percentage states 54% agree that they should "improve the current Constitution to ensure that social achievements are not lost". Anyone can agree with wanting to improve a constitution for a particular position, but the question isn't whether they agree to the call for the Assembly or not like other polls. What do you think? I haven't found a Hinterlaces poll that states "Do you agree with the call for the Assembly?" or something similar. I'm looking at their Scribd site and will let you know when I find one.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 16:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
@ ZiaLater and Number 57: have you got a source about the number of deputies elected by the universel suffrage and the number of the deputies who will be designated ? -- Panam2014 ( talk) 18:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC) @ Sfs90: it is a legislative chamber. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 20:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
The article should have a section on how the Assembly will be chosen, and it should be placed before the "Background" section. The current version is almost exclusively focused on the political "game" surrounding the event rather than the actual poll, and its unclear why this is even considered an election (rather than a selection). The process section indicates its a selection procedure and not an actual election.-- Batmacumba ( talk) 12:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@ ZiaLater, Number 57, Sfs90, and Batmacumba: Hi. It is not an election. A part of members will be appointed by syndicates and the other part elected by the incumbents mayor. We should move the page. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 13:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
In the end, given that the sources contradicted each other, were the deputies elected by municipal constituencies or designated by the mayors? -- Panam2014 ( talk) 11:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Basically, the Assembly being chosen to rewrite the constitution (545 individuals) is divided between individuals below:
I think the count is correct, but Venezuela's teleSUR has so many differentiating numbers (545 total members, 540 total members, 8 additional indigenous members, etc.). Anyways, municipal elections have been delayed by the government for more than one year, meaning that the PSUV (ruling party) still controls the majority of municipal governments which choose 66% of the Constitutional Assembly.
Municipal weight is divided as follows: [1]
So, the PSUV (ruling party) possesses at least 90% of the municipal offices, giving them roughly 328 seats or about 60% of the Constitutional Assembly. However, the MUD (opposition) is boycotting the election saying it is rigged. So, 66%+ of those rewriting the constitution will most likely be PSUV.
There was no public referendum to call for a new constitution. President Maduro just declared the election and it was deemed to be held. So municipal governments are choosing candidates for the Assembly while ordinary people are voting for members of certain social groups that applied to be part of the Assembly – with some of those social groups having more power than others – to be part of the Assembly. Hope this helps!-- ZiaLater ( talk) 16:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
The rough text below is stated twice in the article.
This looks pretty dubious to me, why would it take 2 years? last one took 6 months as i understand. it seems to be only that source stating that, it could be bias trying to paint Maduro as dictator clinging on.
I feel like this should be deleted. SirKeplan ( talk) 22:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Looks good now.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 11:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I should mention that yesterday, during the Assembly's first session, Diosdado Cabello proposed its duration to be two years long; his proposal was approved unanimously. [1]
The normal term for this kind of a body is constituent assembly. That also appears to be more common per Google. Srnec ( talk) 20:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I think there are serious issues with the "public opinion" section, somebody should do some cleaning/sorting. All those polls are clearly contradictory, with discrepancies way beyond the theoretical error bars. This is probably explained by a partisan bias, an unscientific method for those polls using non-representative samples. The extreme case is the "Venezuelan referendum, 2017", which has nothing to do in the poll section since it was clearly not designed to be representative: voting to this unofficial referendum organised by the right-wing was already an act of defiance towards the government. The number of voters of this referendum provides an information (although there might be a bit of fraud on that), but the percentage of no doesn't, and it should not be in the same table/section/figure than polls. In the meantime, for the remaining polls, it would be nice to add to the table some column describing the methodology and its reliability. J.frison ( talk) 05:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Speaking on polls, can anyone find a Hinterlaces poll where it directly states something like "Do you agree with the constitutional assembly?" or "Should an election be called?"-- ZiaLater ( talk) 12:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Zcbeaton We can discuss here. Some looks good and I accidentally removed it. I'll comb through it real quick. Sorry!-- ZiaLater ( talk) 10:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Zcbeaton, can you find another source for the opposition calling for the 2013 Constitutional Assembly? We just need a better source for that. I will perform some edits if you can look for that.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 10:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
From what I can see, many portions of the article where views of media organizations, La Nación and Chávez's responsibility of the economy for example, were edited to falsely attribute their words to the opposition. Media ≠ opposition.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 10:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, User:ZiaLater reverted my edits today with no obvious reason. Could you please explain before reverting again?
I cleaned up the article and sought to improve the balance. For example, instead of stating that the quality of life of Venezuelans has been "diminished ... as a result of Chávez's policies", I made clear that this is the position of the opposition, and added the position of the Venezuelan government (without stating that either is correct). I corrected the claim that the TSJ "quickly [stripped] four opposition lawmakers of their seats" to clarify that only three of these lawmakers belonged to the opposition (2 MUD, 1 indigenous opposition, 1 pro-government). I also linked this to the alleged "self-coup", as these events are clearly linked. I edited the paragraph about the "international community"'s reaction to also mention Venezuela's regional allies, as otherwise this is hopelessly one-sided. All of these changes are in line with WP:NPOV, and all of my edits were thoroughly cited. According to the edit summary, User:ZiaLater does not think Venezuelanalysis is a legitimate source - why not? What makes it less credible than the right-wing outlets cited throughout?
Please engage with me on this instead of continuing to remove good faith edits. — Zcbeaton ( talk) 10:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2017 Constitutional Assembly of Venezuela which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 02:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not satisfied that this article is written from a neutral point of view, as it regularly gives undue balance to the Venezuelan opposition's narrative at the expense of the Venezuelan government's narrative. I'm equally dissatisfied that User:ZiaLater has self-appointed themselves as caretaker of the page, reversing my edits and claiming some kind of authority to personally review my edits and re-implement them as they see fit.
The article desperately needs a rewrite to overcome the heavy imbalance. — Zcbeaton ( talk) 12:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, here we go:
Hopefully this helps.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 16:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
This article is worth including, the company that supplies the voting machines has said that the turnout figures announced by the government are different to the actual turnout figures, throwing into doubt the what "results" the government chooses to publish. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-40804812 MattUK ( talk) 15:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Should it not be in the Results section, rather than buried at the bottom of the Reactions section? MattUK ( talk) 15:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
This is odd that a national election, no matter how much one-sided and boycotted by opposition, doesn't include the list of winner representatives who were elected. If soneone can find such a list, it will be helpful. I cannot understand Spanish so it will be difficult for me. 59.89.47.103 ( talk) 23:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Apologies in advance for any typos and grammar mistakes. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 04:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
"Results" section's title is slightly misleading, because this section only contains information about turnout and turnout estimates and not about actual results. Perhaps it should be renamed to "Turnout", or its content should be under a "Turnout" subsection of this section. 109.60.39.145 ( talk) 17:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2017 Constituent Assembly of Venezuela which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 13:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Classifying the Holy See under "Catholic Church" is incorrect. And it is not consistent with other pages on Wikipedia. The Holy See is a sovereign nation and an observer at the UN. On the Wikipedia page of "International Reactions to the annexation of Crimea by Russia", the Holy See's reaction is in the same list of states as Germany, France, India, and dozens of others. The Holy See should not be listed separately. If for instance, the leader of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod were to issue a statement about the Venezuelan election, then that would have to be classified under Churches or something. But the Holy See should not be classified differently than the reaction of any sovereign, internationally recognized state. I believe this is inaccurate and contrary to the standards and norms of Wikipedia. Just look at any similar page which lists the international reactions to something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3991:7260:1117:AF95:44B:F31F ( talk) 22:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I think we should remove the "Proposals" section. The assembly is already in place, and we should talk about the things it is actually doing. Cambalachero ( talk) 00:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Should a map showing the recognition of the elections by country be created? -- Jamez42 ( talk) 05:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Jamez42: Almost done with the map. I'll upload it and you can take a look before we place it anywhere.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 20:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Jamez42: How does it look? The file might be moved since I requested a move from the original name.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 21:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Any opinion Cambalachero?-- ZiaLater ( talk) 19:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
It is evident that a clarification of what the vast areas in gray mean is badly needed. -- AVM ( talk) 20:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Hinterlaces published a map illustrating and explaining the international position towards the ANC, I'll leave it here to whoever might be interested (source in Spanish). -- Jamez42 ( talk) 17:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Kilgore T: Hi, could you please point out which are the claims that are unsourced to improve? Thanks! -- Jamez42 ( talk) 15:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the two false assertions that 364 of the Constituent Assembly delegates were chosen by "municipal governments," as such delegates were actually chosen by direct election at the local level. See e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/25/venezuela-elections-all-you-need-to-know ("364 members of the assembly will be chosen by local polls open to all registered voters."). The assertions that they were chosen by municipal governments were not only unsupported by the EFE article cited, but also in contradiction to the introductory section of this Wikipedia article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mserard313 ( talk • contribs) 01:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2017 Venezuelan Constituent Assembly election 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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Hinterlaces is often described as being "a pollster linked to the chavismo" ( PanAm Post). We previously had issues with including the GIS XXI and ICS surveys since they also used highly slanted data. The Bolivarian government has often used the strategy of fake polls.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 00:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
SirKeplan, I have softened my position of Hinterlaces since it seems like an outlier among the other polls, so its position appears obvious. However, the source of the percentage states 54% agree that they should "improve the current Constitution to ensure that social achievements are not lost". Anyone can agree with wanting to improve a constitution for a particular position, but the question isn't whether they agree to the call for the Assembly or not like other polls. What do you think? I haven't found a Hinterlaces poll that states "Do you agree with the call for the Assembly?" or something similar. I'm looking at their Scribd site and will let you know when I find one.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 16:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
@ ZiaLater and Number 57: have you got a source about the number of deputies elected by the universel suffrage and the number of the deputies who will be designated ? -- Panam2014 ( talk) 18:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC) @ Sfs90: it is a legislative chamber. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 20:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
The article should have a section on how the Assembly will be chosen, and it should be placed before the "Background" section. The current version is almost exclusively focused on the political "game" surrounding the event rather than the actual poll, and its unclear why this is even considered an election (rather than a selection). The process section indicates its a selection procedure and not an actual election.-- Batmacumba ( talk) 12:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@ ZiaLater, Number 57, Sfs90, and Batmacumba: Hi. It is not an election. A part of members will be appointed by syndicates and the other part elected by the incumbents mayor. We should move the page. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 13:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
In the end, given that the sources contradicted each other, were the deputies elected by municipal constituencies or designated by the mayors? -- Panam2014 ( talk) 11:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Basically, the Assembly being chosen to rewrite the constitution (545 individuals) is divided between individuals below:
I think the count is correct, but Venezuela's teleSUR has so many differentiating numbers (545 total members, 540 total members, 8 additional indigenous members, etc.). Anyways, municipal elections have been delayed by the government for more than one year, meaning that the PSUV (ruling party) still controls the majority of municipal governments which choose 66% of the Constitutional Assembly.
Municipal weight is divided as follows: [1]
So, the PSUV (ruling party) possesses at least 90% of the municipal offices, giving them roughly 328 seats or about 60% of the Constitutional Assembly. However, the MUD (opposition) is boycotting the election saying it is rigged. So, 66%+ of those rewriting the constitution will most likely be PSUV.
There was no public referendum to call for a new constitution. President Maduro just declared the election and it was deemed to be held. So municipal governments are choosing candidates for the Assembly while ordinary people are voting for members of certain social groups that applied to be part of the Assembly – with some of those social groups having more power than others – to be part of the Assembly. Hope this helps!-- ZiaLater ( talk) 16:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
The rough text below is stated twice in the article.
This looks pretty dubious to me, why would it take 2 years? last one took 6 months as i understand. it seems to be only that source stating that, it could be bias trying to paint Maduro as dictator clinging on.
I feel like this should be deleted. SirKeplan ( talk) 22:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Looks good now.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 11:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I should mention that yesterday, during the Assembly's first session, Diosdado Cabello proposed its duration to be two years long; his proposal was approved unanimously. [1]
The normal term for this kind of a body is constituent assembly. That also appears to be more common per Google. Srnec ( talk) 20:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I think there are serious issues with the "public opinion" section, somebody should do some cleaning/sorting. All those polls are clearly contradictory, with discrepancies way beyond the theoretical error bars. This is probably explained by a partisan bias, an unscientific method for those polls using non-representative samples. The extreme case is the "Venezuelan referendum, 2017", which has nothing to do in the poll section since it was clearly not designed to be representative: voting to this unofficial referendum organised by the right-wing was already an act of defiance towards the government. The number of voters of this referendum provides an information (although there might be a bit of fraud on that), but the percentage of no doesn't, and it should not be in the same table/section/figure than polls. In the meantime, for the remaining polls, it would be nice to add to the table some column describing the methodology and its reliability. J.frison ( talk) 05:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Speaking on polls, can anyone find a Hinterlaces poll where it directly states something like "Do you agree with the constitutional assembly?" or "Should an election be called?"-- ZiaLater ( talk) 12:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Zcbeaton We can discuss here. Some looks good and I accidentally removed it. I'll comb through it real quick. Sorry!-- ZiaLater ( talk) 10:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Zcbeaton, can you find another source for the opposition calling for the 2013 Constitutional Assembly? We just need a better source for that. I will perform some edits if you can look for that.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 10:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
From what I can see, many portions of the article where views of media organizations, La Nación and Chávez's responsibility of the economy for example, were edited to falsely attribute their words to the opposition. Media ≠ opposition.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 10:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, User:ZiaLater reverted my edits today with no obvious reason. Could you please explain before reverting again?
I cleaned up the article and sought to improve the balance. For example, instead of stating that the quality of life of Venezuelans has been "diminished ... as a result of Chávez's policies", I made clear that this is the position of the opposition, and added the position of the Venezuelan government (without stating that either is correct). I corrected the claim that the TSJ "quickly [stripped] four opposition lawmakers of their seats" to clarify that only three of these lawmakers belonged to the opposition (2 MUD, 1 indigenous opposition, 1 pro-government). I also linked this to the alleged "self-coup", as these events are clearly linked. I edited the paragraph about the "international community"'s reaction to also mention Venezuela's regional allies, as otherwise this is hopelessly one-sided. All of these changes are in line with WP:NPOV, and all of my edits were thoroughly cited. According to the edit summary, User:ZiaLater does not think Venezuelanalysis is a legitimate source - why not? What makes it less credible than the right-wing outlets cited throughout?
Please engage with me on this instead of continuing to remove good faith edits. — Zcbeaton ( talk) 10:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2017 Constitutional Assembly of Venezuela which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 02:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not satisfied that this article is written from a neutral point of view, as it regularly gives undue balance to the Venezuelan opposition's narrative at the expense of the Venezuelan government's narrative. I'm equally dissatisfied that User:ZiaLater has self-appointed themselves as caretaker of the page, reversing my edits and claiming some kind of authority to personally review my edits and re-implement them as they see fit.
The article desperately needs a rewrite to overcome the heavy imbalance. — Zcbeaton ( talk) 12:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, here we go:
Hopefully this helps.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 16:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
This article is worth including, the company that supplies the voting machines has said that the turnout figures announced by the government are different to the actual turnout figures, throwing into doubt the what "results" the government chooses to publish. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-40804812 MattUK ( talk) 15:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Should it not be in the Results section, rather than buried at the bottom of the Reactions section? MattUK ( talk) 15:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
This is odd that a national election, no matter how much one-sided and boycotted by opposition, doesn't include the list of winner representatives who were elected. If soneone can find such a list, it will be helpful. I cannot understand Spanish so it will be difficult for me. 59.89.47.103 ( talk) 23:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Apologies in advance for any typos and grammar mistakes. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 04:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
"Results" section's title is slightly misleading, because this section only contains information about turnout and turnout estimates and not about actual results. Perhaps it should be renamed to "Turnout", or its content should be under a "Turnout" subsection of this section. 109.60.39.145 ( talk) 17:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2017 Constituent Assembly of Venezuela which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 13:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Classifying the Holy See under "Catholic Church" is incorrect. And it is not consistent with other pages on Wikipedia. The Holy See is a sovereign nation and an observer at the UN. On the Wikipedia page of "International Reactions to the annexation of Crimea by Russia", the Holy See's reaction is in the same list of states as Germany, France, India, and dozens of others. The Holy See should not be listed separately. If for instance, the leader of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod were to issue a statement about the Venezuelan election, then that would have to be classified under Churches or something. But the Holy See should not be classified differently than the reaction of any sovereign, internationally recognized state. I believe this is inaccurate and contrary to the standards and norms of Wikipedia. Just look at any similar page which lists the international reactions to something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3991:7260:1117:AF95:44B:F31F ( talk) 22:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I think we should remove the "Proposals" section. The assembly is already in place, and we should talk about the things it is actually doing. Cambalachero ( talk) 00:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Should a map showing the recognition of the elections by country be created? -- Jamez42 ( talk) 05:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Jamez42: Almost done with the map. I'll upload it and you can take a look before we place it anywhere.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 20:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Jamez42: How does it look? The file might be moved since I requested a move from the original name.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 21:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Any opinion Cambalachero?-- ZiaLater ( talk) 19:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
It is evident that a clarification of what the vast areas in gray mean is badly needed. -- AVM ( talk) 20:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Hinterlaces published a map illustrating and explaining the international position towards the ANC, I'll leave it here to whoever might be interested (source in Spanish). -- Jamez42 ( talk) 17:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Kilgore T: Hi, could you please point out which are the claims that are unsourced to improve? Thanks! -- Jamez42 ( talk) 15:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the two false assertions that 364 of the Constituent Assembly delegates were chosen by "municipal governments," as such delegates were actually chosen by direct election at the local level. See e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/25/venezuela-elections-all-you-need-to-know ("364 members of the assembly will be chosen by local polls open to all registered voters."). The assertions that they were chosen by municipal governments were not only unsupported by the EFE article cited, but also in contradiction to the introductory section of this Wikipedia article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mserard313 ( talk • contribs) 01:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)