Talk:2024 Venezuelan presidential election/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about 2024 Venezuelan presidential election. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Shouldn't Edmundo González be placed first?

Latest comment: 3 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion

This is definitely controversial territory. But shouldn't González be placed first in the infobox?

Most reliable sources consider him the probable winner of the election. KlayCax (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Tagging @SandyGeorgia:. KlayCax (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

There's little I care less about than the timesink caused by dis-infoboxes and the perpetual discussions about dis-infoboxes, particulary while article content needs to be developed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

But it would be nice if a) someone fixed the image sizes so that they fill the box, and b) we replaced the ridiculous blue-haired image of Maduro. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that's just his salt and pepper look. I don't think he dyed his mustache blue. David O. Johnson (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree, this is kind of a no-brainer at this point (unless someone objects), but I say just WP:BRD. CVDX (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Infobox Results

Latest comment: 3 months ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Hello, I wanted to start a discussion on the results that the infobox displays. I understand that the PUD results are backed up by stronger evidence compared to the CNE results, and I do want to preface this by stating that I have no preference either way but rather that I wanted to have a discussion on the best approach.

To the best of my understanding, fraudulent (albeit officially recognized by the state) results are the ones Wikipedia tend to use for the infobox. For example the 1988 Mexican general election, which has the PRI candidate winning despite also recognizing "The elections were widely considered to have been fraudulent, with Salinas de Gortari and the PRI resorting to electoral tampering to remain in power." Same with the 1927 Liberian general election, described as "the most rigged ever." As well as with the 2020 Belarusian presidential election, similarly marred with fraud claims. Ornithoptera (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

We aren't obligated to add anything to any infobox; why not just leave them out entirely? This provides an apt example of times that infobox parameters aren't useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there any chance we could add both results? One infobox for the PUD and another for the CNE results? Microplastic Consumer (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Microplastic Consumer I would support this setup, but we need someone more knowledgeable in MediaWiki to figure out its feasibility. CVDX (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have effectively reached consensus in a later discussion (TODO after archiving: update this link), but for the record, see WP:OTHERCONTENT. We can consider other cases, but we don't need to be limited by them when they're too different. In the 1927 Liberian and 1988 Mexican cases, there was no alternative voting data (e.g. tally sheet scans) available.

In the 2020 Belarusian case, we have a section 2020 Belarusian presidential election#Internet initiatives, based on about 18% of the votes collected by the opposition. There were at least this infobox debate and this official results vs citizens' collected results debate. In some sense, the BY2020 case is possibly the first where arguing that the citizens' results were more reliable than the government-agency one was to some degree justified by the sources. The current case VE2024 is much stronger for citizens' results being more reliable than govt-agency results. So it's reasonable for this case to set a precedent within Wikipedia - for cases where the citizens' results are considered strong enough per the WP:RS (I would say it's not literally "unprecedented", since BY2020 is something of a precedent, but the data fraction, availability and statistical analyses by independent groups are overall much weaker in that case, and at least so far, there is no ongoing debate by article editors to put the opposition data in the infobox.) Boud (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

WikiData, Cite Q, CITEVAR

Latest comment: 3 months ago11 comments3 people in discussion

The use of Cite Q, WikiData is resulting in WP:CITEVAR issues (and outright errors) and making it hard to clean up citations. Some of the Cite Q sources have article titles italicized when they shouldn't be and most are lacking access-dates. Many use a variant style on author names. Many have no trans-title and overriding them here is difficult when the title isn't even given in the citation. And missing publishers. Not impressed by Cite Q and the work it's causing. I don't know how to override the faulty italicized titles, other than simply rewriting those citations entirely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

{{cite Q}} is the only long-term viable way to reduce the amount of work duplication for different language Wikipedias and other Wikimedia wikis - and as well between different en.Wikipedia pages. If someone corrects a non-cite-Q citation on one Wikipedia page, then there's no automatic fix on other Wikipedia pages that use the same reference. So that person's correction is to some degree wasted - it does not automatically propagate to the other Wikipedia articles where it should also be corrected.

{{cite Q}} currently exists in the Wikipedias for 63 different languages. If I create or fix a Wikidata element for a reference for use in one of the Wikipedias, I see no point in requiring people in 62 other languages to have to retype all the bibliographic information, with all the parameters. You can rewrite some of the cite Q citations here if you really want to, but Wikipedia is fundamentally multi-lingual, so rewriting is only a short term hack.

You can add a comment at Template talk:Cite Q#Reminder for title-trans to remind other people that we hope that someone will implement title-trans, or you can find out how to do the fix and propose it in the appropriate module. We're all volunteers. Boud (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you know how to repair the articles titles that are in (faulty) italics ? Book titles are italicized, news articles are not (MOS:ITALICS, MOS:NOITALIC). I fiddled around at WikiData and found nothing, so I'm leaning towards rewriting the remaining faulty citations. Trans-title I can just add locally, but I haven't figured out how to override the coding or data input errors like faulty italics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with that cite style (especially since it's not as easy to edit as wikicode, which is basically WYSIWYG), but I'll work on learning how to use it. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I think I see what you mean.

Italicised title examples: Dalson Figueiredo Filho; Jose Antonio Gomez Duarte (pseudonym); Raphael Nishimura; Walter Mebane (28 July 2024), Estimating Vote Counts with Limited Electoral Integrity (PDF), Wikidata Q128304770, archived from the original (PDF) on 2 August 2024; Informe del Departamento para la Cooperación y Observación Electoral (DECO) de la Secretaría para el Fortalecimiento de la Democracia de la OEA sobre la elección presidencial de Venezuela para el Secretario General Luis Almagro (PDF) (in Spanish), Organization of American States, 30 July 2024, Wikidata Q128129159, archived from the original (PDF) on 30 July 2024; CNE announced Nicolás Maduro Moros' victory with 51.20%, ALBA, 29 July 2024, Wikidata Q128211222, archived from the original on 31 July 2024.

Non-italicised examples: Camilo Gómez Forero (31 July 2024). "¿Por qué ver estos decimales ayudaría a hablar de un fraude en Venezuela?". El Espectador (in Spanish). ISSN 0122-2856. Wikidata Q128211710. Archived from the original on 31 July 2024.; Patricia Torres; Tom Phillips; Tiago Rogero; Sam Jones (29 July 2024). "Venezuela on a knife-edge as opposition accuses Maduro of rigging election". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Wikidata Q128041868. Archived from the original on 29 July 2024.; "TSJ solicita al CNE consignar actas de escrutinios a nivel nacional y las actas de totalización". Efecto Cocuyo (in Spanish). 2 August 2024. Wikidata Q128435622. Archived from the original on 3 August 2024..

The nature of the elements are: Estimating Vote Counts with Limited Electoral Integrity (Q128304770) is a scholarly article (Q13442814); Report on the Venezuelan Presidential Election by the Department for Electoral Cooperation and Observation (DECO) of the OAS Secretariat for the Strengthening of Democracy for Secretary General Luis Almagro (Q128129159) is a report (Q10870555). To me this looks like a nuance where research articles and reports get italics for the title. As far as I know, {{cite Q}} mostly just feeds parameters through to the citation templates/modules, though I've only browsed a bit, so this is just an impression.

A case I don't understand: CNE announced Nicolás Maduro Moros' victory with 51.20% (Q128211222) is a news article (Q5707594), like the three examples I gave that are also a 'news article'. The other three 'news articles' have non-italic titles, but Q128211222 has an italics title. Maybe it's because the publisher is an international organization (Q484652)? Boud (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Boud Yep, those are some of the issues, and after many years of enforcing 2c as FAC Coordinator, they stand out like a sore thumb to me (and the missing publisher on another one is more serious -- we have to identify publishers at min!). Cite Q will cause inconsistent citations wherever it is used; standardization is a nice idea, but it's not how Wikipedia works (WP:CITEVAR) and WikiData can't just impose a citation style across the board. The only way to fix this here, I guess, is to rewrite the citations. Not gonna worry about it for now, but it's like fingernails on a chalkboard to me and I find they make working here much harder, because they invalidate ctrl-f when you're trying to find if a source has been used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia I didn't check if it was you who converted "WaPo_Marudo_lost_election" to a non-Wikidata reference, but please try to remember to preserve the |archive-url, |archive-date parameters if you do these conversions - these were missing. The world wide web is volatile, and long-term archiving is crucial; archives also help for some people who get paywall blocks (these are browser-dependent) or for sources that block some geographical locations (many local US newspapers block all EU IPs rather than handle the GDPR; irrelevant for this article, but relevant for some others). Boud (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Boud ... So sorry about missing that piece. Yes, it was me because we were adding the content almost at the same time, so after I realized we had a duplicate, I tried to reconcile the two, but apparently failed to capture everything.

I know the utility of archive-url, but again, the problem with Cite Q is the parameters aren't visible in edit mode, so it's easy to miss pieces; to reconcile the refs, one has to have two windows open, and then hope you get it all; with my editing limitations, that's a lot of cut-and-paste from an ipad!

Do you know if there is a way we can just use the id= parameter on a cite template to add the WikiData code? That would give us the best of both worlds. I understand that problems of the nature seen here have persisted since the template was created and kept without consensus. Using it leaves WP:CITEVAR breaches that would prevent an article from reaching Featured article status until all were repaired, and as mentioned in previous discussions, can lead to more serious issues.

Also, I keep ref names short and sweet; the quotes are only required on ref names if there are spaces, so I avoid spaces and underscores and quote marks to keep ref names shorter and easier to work with. Sorry again for missing the archive url. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia In a different order to your points, firstly I have to say the same thing as the others: "Wow!" sorry to hear about your accident. :(

The May 2024 cite Q case where a book is apparently also published in a journal - since this doesn't have the element ID listed, it's hard to check the problem without searching.

Quotes on ref names: Quotation marks are preferred but optional if the only characters used are, so the quotes are optional but preferred. (My guesses for the reasons: it's more standard for parsers; it discourages people who put spaces into labels from writing them without quotes.)

Editing techniques: I always edit with multiple tabs and do not purely use the keyboard; I do in practice use the mouse as well, even though in principle pure-keyboard techniques are faster. So I empathise with it being more difficult to edit without having multiple windows or tabs. I've done a very few edits with my PinePhone and the only external device being a keyboard plugged in over the docking bar (though in "convergence" mode, with a keyboard + mouse + external monitor, editing on my phone is fine - the phone is just a GNU/Linux computer plus a mobile modem running a small GNU/Linux system). Anyway, I'm not trying to imply blame - as long as there's no edit war, different editors can complement each other (and not just compliment each other).

Finally, getting to the most practical question, {{citation}} says id id A unique identifier used where none of the specialized ones are applicable Line optional, so I guess it's an option open to editing consensus for a particular article whether it's acceptable to put a Wikidata ID in |id=. I've had a go on my user page sandbox-subsection and the template/module doesn't seem to issue any complaints, either in the format |id=Q128550264 or |id=Wikidata:Q128550264. Even if some people consider it bad style, it can serve as a temporary label so that an editor converting from cite Q to en.Wikipedia citation can leave the Wikidata ID there for others to check and recover significant parameters from. I don't really see why anyone could object: if it's a fact that a source has a Wikidata entry, then that's a form of useful metadata about that source. Boud (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all that Boud; I have to go out now so will look at your sandbox when home. I just hope you realize that my editing limitations cause unintended errors, and I really didn't notice I had left out the archive url. Will catch up later .. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Got most of them done, lots of consistency issues, three more to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

International reactions and summary style

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Bottled for Bread I agree with this revert by FelipeRev; please have a look at WP:SS, WP:SIZE, and add content like that to the sub-article at International reactions to the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election. This article, because of size, focuses only on the most notable reactions -- as in most often mentioned by most sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Bottle for Bread again, regarding this edit, please have a closer look at WP:PRESERVE and WP:DONTPRESERVE. As explained at those pages, the content is included elsewhere, and is UNDUE here.

It appears that I had a typo for you in my last post, so you might not have seen it, but please be aware of WP:BRD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Freedom House open letter

Moved to Talk:2024 Venezuelan political crisis

Aftermath article: migration crisis

Moved to Talk:2024 Venezuelan political crisis

TOC reorganization

Moved to Talk:2024 Venezuelan political crisis

New law on NGOs

Moved to Talk:2024 Venezuelan political crisis

Article organization planning

Latest comment: 3 months ago58 comments8 people in discussion

In terms of how to structure and organize and focus this article (as it approaches 9,000 words of readable prose), where to cut and where to expand, just noting here that Maduro seems to be in for the long haul, which would mean we are eventually going to have some other sub-article.

We already have this article saying more than 1,000 are imprisoned, and with poll watchers and protesters targeted, you can see on Instagram how that is going down, and today we have:

Maduro is labeling protesters as terrorists and denying the right to a public defense: https://www.infobae.com/venezuela/2024/08/02/el-regimen-de-venezuela-prohibio-la-defensa-privada-y-acusa-de-terrorismo-a-los-detenidos-en-las-protestas-contra-el-fraude-de-maduro/
And, he has ordered rehabilitation of two prisons to be ready in 15 days to house those arrested: https://eldiario.com/2024/08/01/carceles-de-tocuyito-y-tocoron-detenidos-protestas/

As I said above, the election results are unlikely to determine the outcome. I'm not suggesting this new content necessarily be added here, but think we might want to start discussing where to trim or what new article(s) to start. The 2024 Venezuelan protests article is a mess, not well tended or developed, and "protests" don't encompass the full picture of what is happening. I would cut a lot of the pre-election bulky tables from here, but so far, others have disagreed with that. At 9,000 words, what ideas are there for "what next"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Boud while you have written most of the statistical vote analysis, I have focused on the actas and the process that went into gathering evidence. We now have numerous sources describing fraud, so it's a notable topic. How would you feel about a spinoff of a lot of this content to 2024 Venezuelan electoral fraud, with a summary back to here? It's a whole separate notable topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia As a matter of principle, OK by me. But first I'd like to integrate material here and catch up. Boud (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

No hurry -- just planning and trying to keep us all on the same page as to how we will handle length as it grows. Let me know when you think we're ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia, @Boud, we really need to think about this as the article gets larger and the news keep on happening. To me, the obvious candidates for splitting/summarizing are #Conduct and irregularities #Reactions, #Aftermath and sections of #Electoral process

This election has caused many more sources and Wikipedians to look into the Venezuelan electoral process; I think the #Electoral process section is already overshadowing Elections in Venezuela#Polling procedure in terms of quality -- and I also believe the lead does a far better job of summarizing the process, so I propose somehow merging them and keeping the prose in this article more focused on aspects of this particular election. CVDX (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Boud, CVDX, Dustfreeworld, and Newslinger: there is still so much more to write; time to think about what to split. We have several proposals above:

2024 Venezuelan electoral fraud allegations ... or make that Conduct and irregularities, and roll in the data fraud along with the other conduct stuff?
Something for Aftermath (how to name) that is more than protests ... there is much more to write, it's generally repression and human rights violations, but can't name it that.
CVDX wants to split off Electoral process, but I'd really like to keep all of the process stuff here, as that is needed to understand the fraud.
Split off all of the Polling ? -- that would go a long ways towards shortening the article, so that if we come up with a new Aftermath (name?) article, that will bring this article WP:SIZE within range, while keeping all the process and fraud here.
And then there's Endorsements-- just an all-round mess ...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot Wilfredor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

And Kingsif; where are you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I think splitting out polling and endorsements - basically, anything that's "in the run-up to the election" can either get its own article or be part of the primaries articles, probably. Summarise here, briefly. Aftermath might need a series of its own articles, to be fair, which could also solve the naming issue. Kingsif (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

See this discussion here in relation to Talk:Venezuelan presidential crisis#Requested move 1 August 2024; if we do something like all of the Fraud and Aftermath stuff in a Crisis-type name, we can keep all the pre-election and election together here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

2024 Venezuelan democratic crisis? FWIW, fraud is definitely the word of choice. Kingsif (talk) 01:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about 2024 democratic crisis; it implies that Venezuela was a democracy before 2024. Fraud has been the thing since Jimmy Carter skeedaddled outta there as fast as he could after the 2004 Venezuelan recall referendum; he didn't see then the same things as now, so those things became institutionalized until they were stopped by the plan to gather the actas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Even a "crisis" name is hard. 2024 Venezuelan crisis is, like, which bit. But it's not just about the presidency. Constitutional crisis suggests that democratic process might be listened to. I'd opt for more generic if unsure. Kingsif (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

2024 Venezuelan political situation, per Reuters: Panama's proposed Summit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Disgustingly generic... why not! Kingsif (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe Aftermath of the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election? A bit long I suppose, but it works.

I think there is merit in @Kingsif's suggestion of splitting out polling, endorsements and generally things that have to do with the run-up to the election. CVDX (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

1. I like the idea of splitting out fraud allegations (which includes a lot of the content currently in #Results), and #Conduct and irregularities as well to something like 2024 Venezuelan electoral fraud (allegations?). But my preferred name would be Conduct of the 2024 Venezuelan elections, which is more inclusive.

2. Why not Aftermath to the 2024 Venezuelan election?

3. Yeah, I've changed my mind, the content in #Electoral process is pretty relevant to the article, and all we can do is trim it -- although it seems to have been very trimmed already. However I still think we could transclude/copyedit some of the content in this page to Elections in Venezuela#Polling procedure, which could be renamed #Electoral process. AFAIK elections have worked like this in Venezuela for a long time (need to research that though).

4 and 5. I'm open to @Kingsif's suggestion of splitting off #Endorsements and #Polling, although #Endorsements seems to me like a more likely candidate to being kept in this article, it just needs organization.

CVDX (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The aftermath definitely needs its own article, while the rest of the election stuff could go different ways-- I'll start a separate section for Aftermath, as we need to get that nailed down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this and haven’t read the discussion in detail until now. If we are splitting the Aftermath section, that probably should only be done after all dust is settled, which means months later. Most readers who come to this article now come for that section. It doesn’t sound like a good idea to move it elsewhere now. Alternatively, to deal with the size problem, most of the Background section can be summarised into one or two paragraphs and split to it’s own article, especially:

Background

- Democratic backsliding

- Crisis in Venezuela

- 2018 election and presidential crisis

- 2020 transitional government proposal

- Opposition primaries

- - June

- - July

- - August

- - October

- - Conduct

All these are long and not the most important (now). --Dustfreeworld (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Dustfreeworld, I understand your reasoning about what is important now (I've always stated that the results wouldn't determine the outcome), but unlike a "typical" election, here we have a background of serious irregularities, and aren't going to have a quick resolution.

Because of the irregularities and seriousness of the issues that preceded the actual election, I view it as critical to keep that content together in one article, because the background is essential for those unfamiliar with Venezuela to understand how we got to where we are. I fear the article would be severely diluted if that content is moved out, and then we'd have to work in further explanations throughout the text, whereas the aftermath can be viewed as a whole new matter, taking off from the point at which Maduro refuses to accept the outcome.

I can easily see now the 2024 Venezuelan political crisis article taking shape, given that sources are making it clear that Maduro's not budging or even negotiating until after US elections. So, I'd disagree with any split of content about the leadup to the actual election, but support a split of content after Maduro's refusal to accept the outcome, once we agree on a title (and I believe we are approaching now the optimal time to make that decision). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia, I’m not sure what do you mean by “the results wouldn't determine the outcome”. Can you explain more? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Dustfreeworld, In a bit of a hurry, but what I mean is basically what is covered in many sources-- that the opposition and savvy observers always knew that Maduro would not be likely to abide by voter wishes or vote tallies (partly why the plan was to gather and save evidence), and it would take much more to get him to accept the results and step aside. In short, where things go from here is a whole 'nother chapter and merits a new article. Another part of that saga, also covered in sources we haven't yet even had time to tap, is that the outcome does not only depend on Maduro, who is a figurehead put in place by Cuba, while power resides in other administration figures, who would also have to agree to step aside and are subject to ICC crimes against humanity charges. Our work on the Aftermath article has only just begun; there are scores of untapped sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand your concern that “the background is essential for those unfamiliar with Venezuela to understand how we got to where we are”. I’m not saying that providing context is not important, but can that be done with just a shorter summary instead of the long sub-sections that we now have (especially those about the opposition primaries)?

My main concern is page views. With a split, I’m not sure the new article will get as many page views that this article now have. If people come to this article and can’t find what they want, and the new article with the most updated and brilliant written :) content has just very few page views, that’s not the desirable results that we want ... --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The background is poorly written. I keep intending to fix that, but the editors who know the history well and which pieces are necessary to understanding the narrative are all mostly missing as fallout from the arbcase, leaving lots to do. I agree with you and suspect it can be trimmed considerably along the lines you say; I've been picking away at it little by little, so please rest assured I think it doable without losing critical bits.

Re page views after the split, this is a crystal ball prediction on my part, but I suspect that things are going to get so ugly that we won't have to worry about page views on the next political crisis article. Unfortunately, I wager they will take off as things unfold and sources begin to focus on the political crisis impacting the hemisphere and dividing Latin America (have you seen the YouTube of the Uruguayan ambassador to the OAS? Or read commentary on the split with Chile?). There has been a bit of a waiting game 'til now on the (misplaced) hope that the three leftists presidents would come together and make some progress, but now even they are divided and disagreeing with each other, and Latin America is further divided, and a serious migration crisis impacting the entire world is pending, making it more likely other world leaders will begin to weigh in. With the 17 August protests over, the time is upon us to create the article about the overall political crisis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Re the background, I agree with you with trimming.

Re page views after the split, no it’s not a crystal ball prediction. Maybe I haven’t made my points clear. What I mean is, most people are coming back to the article like a fan/follower. They come back to see if there’s anything new (in the Aftermath section). If they don’t, they’ll just leave and won’t come back the next day. I don’t think a hatnote linking to the new article can draw their attention or draw traffic to the new article.

Um ... Whether things are going to get ugly, etc ... do sound a bit like crystal ball predictions ...

Actually I don’t think article size is really a big issue. Can we just leave the Aftermath section as is for now? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Answered under #Plan? section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Dustfreeworld, not sure if I'm done yet, but I'm bleary-eyed and stopping for the day. I've reduced 1,000 words, which is almost 10% of the article. You were right about where the cuts were needed (in the primaries). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't prefer a split of fraud or conduct; those are essential pieces of the narrative.

I'd like to split off Polling and Endorsements (endorsements only because it is never going to be cleaned up here, it can be sent to List of endorsements in the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election, and can be summarized simply). 2024 Venezuelan presidential election opinion polling is an easy one.

I think once we get the Aftermath dealt with, we won't have a WP:SIZE problem.

If we still have a size problem after splitting Aftermath, then I can see combining Conduct and Fraud allegations to one sub-article, but I hope we proceed very cautiously on whether to do that split, so as to not dilute all that happened during the run-up to and the actual election. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, let's deal with Aftermath first since we have more of a consensus on that, then polling, and then we'll work on the rest. Eventually. CVDX (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Endorsements sub-article

I first raised concerns about the poor Endorsement section over three months ago; besides my cleanup, the section hasn't really improved, and isn't adding value to the reader.

Does anyone object if I split off

List of endorsements in the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

No objection, in fact, please do. Kingsif (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Done, still working on summary back to here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Operation Tun Tun

I just found Operation Tun Tun, and scores of sources mention it and the crackdown. I'm going to focus a bit on which content can go there, and depending on how much fits there, that may change my mind on naming of the Aftermath article. This may take me the rest of today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I got as far as I could on this today, but with multiple distractions, wasn't able to finish as planned. Finding that we had Operation Tun Tun, and that almost all recent sources are talking about it, and I could move a lot of content there -- along with moving out the Endorsements -- cut this article now down to a place where I hope we can take a few more days to see which direction things go before deciding how to name the Aftermath article. I still have a lot to add to the Tun Tun article, but at least I can now stop chunking that content in to here, so this has become more manageable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Naming a post-election article

Possibilities ...

2024 Venezuelan political situation
2024 Venezuelan presidential election crisis
2024 Venezuelan presidential election aftermath
Aftermath of the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election
2024 Venezuelan democracy crisis
2024 Venezuelan political conflict
2024 Venezuelan political crisis NYT AFP Reuters BBC
Neither AFP nor BBC use those specific words: PBS CNBC AP
...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I propose 4. Aftermath of the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election, but out of your proposals, my favorite is 3.

Pinging @Boud, @David O. Johnson, @Dustfreeworld, @CoryGlee, @Kingsif, @Newslinger. CVDX (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Three is my preference; it's descriptive enough. David O. Johnson (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I am between #2 and #3. Even though it is an "aftermath", no one can doubt that it's an escalation/aggravation of the long-ongoing Venezuelan crisis. CoryGlee (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

No preference here, all are suitable and descriptive. Kingsif (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I am now leaning towards 6. political conflict ... it's much more than the presidency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I would tend to go for 6 2024 Venezuelan political crisis, keeping in mind that I'm unlikely to contribute much to it, so this is a "what I think others should do" POV, not a "what I would be likely to do" POV. I've noticed that pt:Crise política venezuelana de 2024 exists but is just a stub; and es:Crisis política en Venezuela de 2024 exists but seems to have stopped its timeline on 5 August, nearly two weeks ago. Given that the Portuguese and Spanish language communities have a particular interest in this situation, their lack of having sufficient editing interest suggests that it might not be easy to gain enough editor interest to maintain the split-off article here at en. None of this is an argument against a split, of course. Boud (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm partial to that as well, and a lot of the content that would be split to there is already written. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Plan?

@Boud, CoryGlee, CVDX, David O. Johnson, Dustfreeworld, Kingsif, Newslinger, ReyHahn, and Wilfredorf:. The list of potential names grew, and looking back at what DFW was trying to do with article organization, what I was trying to do with negotiations, and what we're all trying to decide up at #Article organization planning, here's where I'm coming out.

I'm still most partial to calling the Aftermath article 2024 Venezuelan political crisis. It's beyond the election, will get into issues like migration, Operation Tun Tun, different exit strategies, protests, legal issues, International Criminal Court, TSJ, along with everything else that has happened post-election.
But I don't see it looking like the Spanish Wiki article. There has long been a big problem of es.wiki articles being built around WP:PROSELINE, and the policies and guidelines over there just don't compare to those here on en.wiki. So while I like that title for its breadth, I don't see us replicating the structure there.
I envisioned the splitting point being pretty much like it's set up now. Reactions could be either part of the election article or part of the new article, or a partial split between the two articles, while everything from Aftermath down becomes the core of the 2024 Venezuelan political crisis article.
Right now we're at 11,833 words of readable prose. Chopping off the bottom of this article leaves it at 9,910 words of readable prose, which is not horrible per WP:SIZE; I've seen much worse in featured articles, and although I don't agree with passing 10,000 words of readable prose, I think it would be worse here to cut out part of the story. I'm sure we can still trim and tighten the Background section, and a lot of the older writing, which is just too verbose. Then the split (afer adding a lead and background section) would be starting already with 2,500 words of readable prose, and I've been holding off on considerable content that can already be added (eg expanding the Negotiations, the Crackdown, the legal maneuvers they're up to, etc).
So, if that becomes the split, we would need to leave Allegations of fraud in the core article, because the article doesn't hang together without it. The new split takes off from the point that the fraud allegation is now a given and doesn't have to delve into it other than one to three explanatory lines in Background or the lead. On where to put the Cyberattack allegations, I'm not so sure. It is needed in the Aftermath as it relates to the Madura administration excuse for not providing tallies and things like the arrest of Superlano; we might need it in both articles in some form?
I see also some overlap with the group of three left-leaning presidents, as that could be needed in both articles, but seems to be becoming less important as the three now seem to be at odds.
But a different possibility is to have the Reactions section be the starting point of the Aftermath article, but work the Allegations of fraud back in to the main article, maybe with the Results. We could sort that as we go.
Once we get the split done, and as things evolve, the structure of the various Negotiations might become clearer. I'm unsure at this point whether to separate the US from Brazil/Colombia, or to go thematically, and that's not helped by the fact that the US hasn't elaborated a clear position. On the one hand, since they're all over the map, it may be useful just to give them their own section. I dunno. But with the content that is to be added now, where they are allegedly contemplating sanctions, it would end up as US proposals: sanctions and amnesty or some such. It may help if I just start writing from these sources, and we sort that out later.

So, any strong opinions? Or does anyone care if I just dig in and create 2024 Venezuelan political conflict with this loose plan, and we see where it takes us? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Why the hurry to split? Can we (you :) just continue expanding the Aftermath section here? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Answering your question from above and here: Yes, doing nothing for now is also an option, because 11,000 words of readable prose is too big, but not dreadfully unreadable (yet). I only moved forward on this now because of our edit conflict today, that got me thinking about whether I need to re-focus where to work, before I started adding the new material on the Negotiations. We'll see what others think? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I think your plan in 3 is great; I would probably need to read where the article is at now to have more opinions on where borderline sections should be covered, I’ll come back to that. And a side comment but DFW asking you to expand content here because they disagree with general consensus is just wild and kinda off topic. There are comments that don’t really need addressing because of being uncollaborative, and they’re getting close to that. Kingsif (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kingsif, may I ask if you have read my comment above and the discussion between Sandy and me thereafter? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've read it all. If people come to Wikipedia looking for the aftermath, they might as well get it at its own article. It's your view against a consensus, and just going on repeating that you don't want the split while simultaneously not volunteering to maintain length here but saying other people should still update here... is a bit of a joke. Kingsif (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you may have misread it all.

I’m not “requesting” or “ordering” anyone to do the update.

On the contrary, it’s a compliment.

It’s not that I’m “not volunteering to maintain length here but saying other people should still update here..” as you said.

I’m saying (with a smiley) that her edits are brilliant and just hope that she can continue with the good work. To me, Sandy has always been a great mentor, and I believe I’ve mentioned this (or something similar) more than once at more than one venue. She’s a very good editor and I just don’t want our “edit conflicts” affect her editing. What I’m saying is that I’d rather edit less so as not to interfere with what she does.

The communication between SG and me is quite “special” I would say. It’s been so since we first “met”. That said, I’m very glad that we have always been so frank and civil. And what I appreciate most is that we can always move beyond whatever that was.

As to the split, do you think I’m raising those concerns out of my own good? Also, as long as the discussion is still going on, anyone can raise their opinions, whether they are the same or different. The word “consensus” isn’t a tool used to mute opposite ideas. (And even if a discussion is closed, it can still be reopened). Further, consensus can change. (FYI, those concerns stem out from my experience of editing a BLP with a current event).

While it seems that you’ve made 3 edits to the article, I believe the page statistics would show whether I have volunteered to maintain length.

PS. I believe your comment “There are comments that don’t really need addressing because of being uncollaborative, and they’re getting close to that.” is unfair and is hurting your fellow Wikipedian. I hope it’s just a misunderstanding.

Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Reading, but barely keeping up-- still bleary-eyed trying to get all the changes in, thank you for the kind words of support from both, but I do think if events stop progressing rapidly (which may happen this week), we might find the timing optimal to get the split over with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

PS, here's what I'm watching; I thought Tun Tun would take off more, and I have so much work to do there still, but it hasn't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s the fact that users agreed splitting in a certain way was a good idea, and I wasn’t saying you can’t come late and disagree, but that to keep repeating that disagreement as if it’s your view against one other view (rather than your dissent against something that’s been endorsed) rubs me the wrong way. There’s more collaborative ways of reopening discussion, rather than it appearing to me as someone external that you think your opinion is more important than everyone else’s. But if you say that’s just your special way of communicating with Sandy, I’ll believe it. Kingsif (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

FYI, I haven’t opposed that “splitting in a certain way was a good idea”. I’ve never said that we should never have a separate article. What I said is we only want it after the dust is settled.

Re “keep repeating that disagreement as if it’s your view against one other view” I don’t know what do you mean by “keep repeating”, I only disagree in this discussion, I see nothing wrong repeating my arguments while elaborating. As to “against one other view”, SG is the main contributor of the article. She is the one who proposed the split, and who has subsequently raised different proposals for the new article’s name. And, later she’s asking that “So, any strong opinions? Or does anyone care if I just dig in and create 2024 Venezuelan political conflict with this loose plan”. Of course I’d try to persuade / discuss with her / answer her “call for opinions” first, what’s wrong with that?

Maybe my way of “reopening discussion” (well I don’t think it’s “closed” and I still don’t understand why it needs to be “reopened”) is not the best, I do believe “There’s more collaborative ways” of commenting others’ way of reopening discussion.

After accusing me of making comments that “don’t really need addressing” because they are “getting close to being uncollaborative”, “not volunteering to maintain length here but saying other people should still update here..”, now you are telling me that “you think your opinion is more important than everyone else’s”., which IMO is your ABF assumption with no basis. To be frank, I found discussion like this very unpleasant, uncollaborative, time-consuming, and it’s getting personal. This discussion is now about commenting on a fellow editor rather than commenting on content objectively, and I don’t think this can lead to any constructive / optimal outcome. You can do whatever you want. That’s enough for me. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I am ok with 2024 Venezuelan political crisis. Inspired by Reuters and BBC [1] [2] it could also be called something along the lines of 2024 Venezuelan election dispute. Another possibility is to make it around the protests and have 2024 Venezuelan protests (oh wait that already exists!). The split envisioned in 3 (everything below aftermath) seems the way to go. I wish we could wait a bit more.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Will split 20 August

As of this version, the article is too large to edit easily; in trying to add violence content, I'm having load time issues and haven't been able to finish.

The problem is not coming from the prose size (11,200 words of readable prose); it's that the article size is 325KB-- probably because of the density or high number of maps, tables, etc. For comparison purposes, Venezuela sanctions (with dense maps and tables and 9,000 words of prose) is only 255KB. Looking at Featured articles, the absurdly long Douglas MacArthur has 19,000 words of prose, but the file size is only 250KB. And FA Periodic table, with heavy images and tables and 15,000 words of prose, has a file size of 260KB. At 325KB, the load time here is affecting content contribution.

I expect the work to create 2024 Venezuelan political crisis to take most of the day, what with getting WP:CWW correct, recovering refs, getting terms wikilinked and defined correctly in both, then adding a summary back to here plus a lead there, and the like, so please hold off on 20 August if possible on major changes. I have most of 20 August free, and almost none of 21 August free, but the main issue here is that I'm finding it very hard to edit because of load time, so I'd like to take my free day to get this done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Planning to start within the hour; will have the article in use as I work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

As of this version, 9,400 words of readable prose, and 290KB article size. Stopping for a bit; will next move talk page sections that pertain to new article over there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Results map in the lead

Latest comment: 3 months ago42 comments5 people in discussion

This move of the PUD results map to the lead led to edit warring. I have undone it; please discuss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe vote tallies or maps belong anywhere in the lead. Both sides claim to win – one claims a narrow win, the other claims a landslide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
IMO the edit war started by inexperienced user removing content without valid reason has stopped after I told them about WP:PRESERVE. I don’t know why you join the edit war if you think discussion is needed. Anyway.

Currently the lead says:

“Academics, news outlets and the opposition provided "strong evidence" according to The Guardian[9] to suggest that González won the election by a wide margin,[10][11] with the opposition releasing copies of official tally sheets collected by poll watchers from a majority of polling centers showing a landslide victory for González.[7][12][13][14] The government-controlled National Electoral Council (CNE) announced falsified[15][16][17] results claiming a narrow Maduro victory on 29 July. The CNE's results were rejected by the Carter Center. Analyses by media sources including the Associated Press,[18] the Washington Post,[19] El Espectador,[16] and Infobae[17] found the results lacking credibility or statistically improbable.”

What’s the problem to have image in the lead that illustrate the text, and showing the “strong evidence”? If CNE never has similar map, does that mean we should never include the map of PUD, which we described as “strong evidence” by RS?

Even if the CNE results map is available in the future, I’m still not sure if we should have that included, as our lead is now describing it as “falsified” results. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Putting results tables, data or maps from an unofficial source, while leaving out an official source, in the infobox or in an image in the lead is always going to be unusual and generate controversy and naturally lead to edit wars; discussing and gaining consensus saves everyone time and avoids agida. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for effectively reminding people of WP:ROGD: it's still rough consensus for many articles that unreliable OGD has to be treated with an almost equivalent status to reliable OGD, though in reality, it's really under-discussed and is a TODO issue for the en.Wikipedia community. Anyway, for this article, we have a close to unprecedented case, so we are open to seeking consensus for this particular article. Moreover, WP:OTHERCONTENT means we can consider this article on its own merits (the merits of its sources). Whether that leads to similar editing consensus on other articles in similar situations will be seen later. Boud (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know of anything that’s “always going to be unusual and generate controversy and naturally lead to edit wars”, maybe that should be written to WP:BOLD. That’s your opinion anyway. Discussing and gaining consensus are good, though I don’t think they need to go along with edit war. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
DFW, we had an arbcase, and Venezuelan politics was nearly made a WP:CTOP; could we just proceed with enough caution that we will be left with time to actually build content rather than dealing with edits that are likely to generate controversy? As I'm trying to build content, I'm seeing unnecessary maintenance tags go on the article; I can certainly go work elsewhere if that is to be the environment here. And per WP:BRD, as soon as moving that map to the lead was disputed, it shoulda gone to talk then. Please remember we're all busy volunteers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
“Unnecessary maintenance tags” are your opinion. Have you counted how many edits of mine that you have reverted? What I’m seeing is “unnecessary reverts”. I’m not going into detail with WP:BRD here, as we’re all busy volunteers. Leave it to those who are fond of policies.

If we were “proceeding with enough caution”, I don’t think the US position from Miami Herald yesterday should be added now per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. It’s fine that we disagree, but just don’t say that I’m not proceeding with enough caution while you are when it’s not the case. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Um, so I guess this is personal? All right. I believe that clarifying the US position is relevant-- particularly when the Miami Herald is quoting two State Department spokespersons. It's not CRYSTAL; it's a spokesperson speaking to them. Have you been able to access that article ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
B.

We’re all busy volunteers. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion to move map of PUD to the section Results announced by the PUD from the lead. If there are no results in the lead by CNE there shouldn't be of PUD either. PUD is not relevant authority to announce the winner, so their results should be in their own section as part of WP:PRESERVE Bottle for Bread (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

How about using {{switcher}} as on the Spanish-language version of this page to shift the maps to the lead? The reader would easily switch back and forth between the PUD and PNE versions. We could make the "all" option the default one to be as NPOV as possible, presenting both the evidence-free POV and the evidence-based POV together. Any objections? Boud (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

es.wikipedia doesn't have the same policies and guidelines as en.wikipedia and that infobox is dreadful ... it relies on hidden parameters, and our MOS tells us not to do that. Yes, I would oppose, as I don't agree with chunking up the infobox at all ... let readers actually read the article (novel idea, I know ... :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

PS, if we had a side-by-side map, with both CNE and PUD, we could use {{multiple image}} and then I wouldn't necessarily object to having them in the lead ... but since a map for CNE results isn't possible because they haven't provided that data, we can't get there from here. Maybe one side-by-side table of overall results would work, but I don't see what that adds; the content is in the lead, the results are disputed, and the outcome is not going to be based on vote tallies anyway (it never was). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

For a side-by-side map: I see nothing wrong with File:Venezuela_Estados.svg - that is the current result from the CNE. Boud (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

And probably all we'll get :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I like the idea of the switcher template, maybe not in infobox, but just below it? And IMO the caption of the CNE results may contain the word “falsified” with citation. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t support side-by-side map in the infobox because the maps would be too small. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about the lead, not the infobox; the edit-warred map was not in the infobox -- it was below it. If it's just within content, maps don't have to be too small, because the multiple image template has a size setting. But Boud's point is that there is no CNE map to display anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify: my point is that showing File:Venezuela_Estados.svg as the CNE map is fully justified by all our sources. Whatever differences in policy and practice there are between es-wikipedia and en-wikipedia, their idea of using File:Venezuela_Estados.svg as the CNE map through {{switcher}} seems informative and justified by the sources. This is a situation where the lack of information is effectively a notable piece of information. I'm not fussy about if it should be in the infobox or below; having these maps somewhere in the lead with switcher would seem reasonable to me. We do have a CNE map to display - it just happens to show all states in grey. Boud (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I leave it to you; as I've said too many times, I don't think that vote tallies are the main story here (they were always going to be ignored, always have been, nothing new except this time there is enough proof that the rest of the world finally tuned in), so I'm trying to focus on building other content. The purpose of this thread was to remind to use talk rather than edit warring, and that if we add one to the lead, we have to add the other. I don't care what is decided as long it's based on consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m afraid I can’t agree with your “purpose of this thread”. Nvm. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, I do hope I know why I started the thread :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree :) I’m happy as long as the PUD map is in the lead section. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

So I'll ask again, since now it appears that there may be consensus.

Are there any objections against shifting the maps to ~~the infobox~~ (edit: go under the infobox) as currently shown in my sandbox?

(Putting {{switcher}} outside of the infobox has a technical limitation, because the radio buttons are not contained within a neat box.) Boud (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC) (edit Boud (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC))

Confused; I hate ultra-long infoboxes, as they interfere with content, and was envisioning them as images below the infobox. We can move the Venezuelan politics sidebar elsewhere (eg Background). Because this election is so unique, I'd like to not expand the infobox or encourage filling of infobox parameters, so prefer a standalone image. Is that doable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, how about this version? It uses the generic {{infobox}} template, but it's independent of the election infobox, so in terms of html, it's not constrained to stick to the election infobox. It's standalone. Boud (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Much better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Except why are we showing Guyana disputed territory on the map? It's territory controlled by Guyana and doesn't vote in Venezuela, and it's weird that we show it on the PUD map, but not the Maduro map, when Maduro is the one promoting the Guyana dispute (to distract from the Venezuela crisis). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, rather than use the generic infobox, why not just use {{Multiple image}} and place them vertical with a footer? One problem with infoboxes is that, once you add them, people start filling the parameters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I created this version 1239288553 that links to versions of the maps without Essequibo and uses {{stack}} instead of {{infobox}}. I tried {{multiple image}} but that needs image file names directly, not objects such as {{switcher}}. There do seem to be problems with {{stack}}, e.g. if I make my window narrow, the maps get partially obscured by the infobox.

I think that's risky, so I propose this version 1239289223 with the infobox template. OK to use this version 1239289223? Boud (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

No prob from me, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Done Boud (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Boud @Dustfreeworld @SandyGeorgia I like the idea of moving results to the lead now that the dust has settled, but why is this limited to the image? As there is no regional breakdown for the CNE results (giving the impression that there are no results), I think the current setup doesn't do the situation justice, as per WP:ROGD and WP:CTOP.

If we are going to show the unofficial PUD results in the lead we should show the CNE result as well, but there's nothing in the infobox. I'm in favor of somehow including both in the lead. Is the current setup because of a technical limitation with infoboxes?

I feel like as it stands now, the presentation isn't sufficiently WP:NPOV. Even if all the info regarding the controversy is in the text, at a glance it's not as obvious from a skim/infobox perspective. I think it would only work with a corresponding double results infobox of some sort.

CVDX (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@CVDX: It looks like {{switcher}} can be used inside of {{infobox election}}! Have a look at my sandbox oldid 1239358710. I just did that rapidly as a proof-of-concept with the percentages: this is quite easy to do in terms of syntax; I put an extra space at the beginning of each line to make the nesting of curly brackets clearer, though that's not obligatory. @SandyGeorgia and Dustfreeworld: Any objections to using {{switcher}} in this way for the vote counts and percentages in the infobox (i.e. infobox election)? Repeat refs can be inserted there too. Putting the PUD data first and CNE second is justified by the overwhelming majority of the reliable sources. Readers would still have easy access to the CNE numbers, just slightly less prominently than the PUD ones. If there are no objections, anyone can easily do that edit without needing much tech skill. You can do this in a single line, e.g. |percentage1 = {{switcher|30%|per the PUD|51.2%|per the CNE}} if you're worried about mixing up nested curly brackets. Boud (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't know that was possible, but it would be ideal in my opinion. Show the PUD results first as most sources give more credit to them, keep the CNE results easily accessible under a radio button. The example in your sandbox looks great, but the "see all" option doesn't make much sense in this context, any way to remove it?

Let's see if we can find the consensus required to make this change.

Would it be possible to make the percentage changes contingent on the map change and vice versa? As in, make it so readers can choose to see the complete picture of one side's results or the other, instead of separate radio buttons for maps and percentages? CVDX (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The "show all" button seems reasonable to me: some readers may want to look at both numbers simultaneously. As for removing it, it seems to be coded in the .css class "switcher-container", so individuals could avoid the "show all" button by creating a personal .css file. In other words, it's not easy to do for default readers.

I don't think that linking the switch between the {{infobox election}} and the {{infobox}} would be easy. In principle, we could have {{switcher}} at the outer level, and inside of it, put firstly the full {{infobox election}} (the actual infobox) and {{infobox}} (maps) for PUD; and secondly, another copy of the full {{infobox election}} (actual infobox) and {{infobox}} (maps) for CNE. But in that case, any undisputed parameters edited in one copy might be updated in one copy and not the other. Even worse, the "show all" button would give four boxes altogether (infobox, maps, infobox, maps). Technically, anything is possible, but some solutions are more sustainable and verifiable and convenient than others. What we do on this page might motivate people to think up new scripts to match this sort of situation. Boud (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

JNOJ1423 did some edits without discussing them here on the talk page, but to me they look consistent with rough consensus with the discussion here. I don't think a revert would be justified. Probably just a bit of reduction in the number of repeat links is needed, without going to the other extreme of underlinking, where the reader has to scan the whole article to find a clickable link. Boud (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Parish/parroquia map

@SandyGeorgia, JNOJ1423, and FelipeRev: The parish/parroquia map is not currently in the lead; state/estado -> municipality/municipio -> parish/parroquia -> centre/centro -> table/mesa. This map does have some problems:

it includes Essequibo;
the copyright/derivation has to be cleared up;
it doesn't have the <title="...">... parameters in the .svg source, so mouseover doesn't show which parish is which, and editing the .svg file directly doesn't allow searching for parish names; this makes the file difficult to edit by non-experts in Venezuelan administrative geography.

I don't see any argument against including the map in the PUD results section. If someone handles these problems, then it might be considered for adding to the lead, together with the CNE blank parish-level map. Boud (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Oops; sorry for my carelessness. When I looked at it, I thought it was the same as the municipality map and that someone had mistranslated. Since there's a copyright issue, I won't self-revert, so thanks for letting me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@CoryGlee and SandyGeorgia: Just for the record, JNOJ1423 restored the parish/parroquia image to the body (PUD section), without first seeking consensus. I don't have the impression that we have consensus to include the map in its current form, but I did a revert on that recently, so within the spirit of voluntary WP:1RR I'll leave it to others to revert or provide previously uninvolved input to the discussion in this talk page section.

As can be seens over at the Commons discussion, the licence for the image is probably acceptable, though the uploader hasn't acknowledged what is actually in the file or clarified where all the pieces come from; in any case, the place for that discussion is over at Commons, and really needs someone with more Commons copyright tracing experience to tidy up. Boud (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that info, Boud; I got very busy IRL and for the last few days, have only been able to keep up with error correcting. Starting tomorrow, I should have more time to go back and fill in gaps with the dozens of sources I never got to add while busy and while having internet issues. My guess is that most of the blatant errors are out now, although there are still serious copyedit needs in the Background section, and gaps in the Aftermath. After I get the missing added to aftermath, and the Tun Tun article up to date, I hope we'll be ready to turn our attention to what sub-article to use for Aftermath. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

More statistics

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Boud, here's more for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Boud can this source be used? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Amaya, Sol; Jiménez, Sebastián; Razo, Jhasua (9 August 2024). "After Venezuela's contested presidential vote, experts say government results are a 'statistical improbability'". CNN. Retrieved 9 August 2024.

SandyGeorgia I've added it to give notability to justify adding Andrew Gelman's agreement that the CNE first data release sequences of zeros have a probability of about 1 in 100 million.

The article's comment on the MOE analysis highlights a slightly puzzling element of the MOE analysis, quoting the calculation of the electoral participation that is in the database is consistent with the data presented by the Venezuelan CNE, which continues with minimal variation (59.97% in the second bulletin vs. 60.7% in the database), without explaining how it gets 59.97%. Our PUD table has 12386669/21392464 = 57.90% for the CNE second release participation rate, not 59.97%. While the argument of the MOE appears to be that the total voters and total registered voters counts of the CNE could reasonably be considered consistent with the PUD data given that the missing tally sheets (and the tally sheets that the MOE were unable to analyse automatically) could reasonably give a difference of 1%, it's not actually stated, and the difference between 57.90 and 59.97 is not explained.

However, the second statement about the MOE report, the MOE validates the results that give González Urrutia as the winner, is probably a fair 10-second-sound-bite "plain language" summary of point 6 (= page 6) of the MOE report Review of tally sheets and electoral documents – Venezuelan Presidential Election 2024 (Q128803681), so I've added that. Boud (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Images

Latest comment: 3 months ago10 comments4 people in discussion

... are getting out of control and crowding/dominating text. Please see MOS:IMAGES.

Also, see WP:GALLERY. "Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article." There are appropriate uses of galleries (eg in articles about art); we don't have that need in the galleries here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello SandyGeorgia; I agree with you, it is an encyclopedia, not a congress of PowerPoints. Besides, I don't agree with having a map that includes half of a sovereign state (Guyana) in the main box. CoryGlee (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

CoryGlee, I thought we had gotten Guyana out of the infobox; I'm not sure how it came back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@CoryGlee: The maps in the lead as of this version of 23:54, 11 August 2024 did not have Essequibo. Someone must have changed the maps since then. I think that a revert would be justified once the edit is found. Boud (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Done In this edit I reverted JNOJ1423's switch to the Essequibo maps, and removed the parroquia map from the lead, since consensus does not yet seem to have been obtained. I didn't trace who restored the parroquia map to the lead. Boud (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Boud, for taking your time. I can't revert other than manually, have not yet gotten used to the tool. Thanks again. CoryGlee (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

DFW, re this edit summary, it's not that we can't have images of campaigning; it's that we don't need three images showing the same thing, and we need copyright clearance. I'd add back an appropriately trimmed image gallery, except that I am not confident those images have copyright clearance, as they were cropped from a Youtube. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

SG, you didn’t raise all these concerns in the edit summary of your first revert. I think it’s natural for me to think that you don’t want any campaign images, as you’ve removed them all. If you can / are willing to strike out / retract / revise your edit summaries, I really don’t mind striking mine (if I can ;).

IMO copyright concern should first be addressed at commons, not the other way round. And just like any other speculations, concerns of copyright clearance are better supported by evidence, and be raised at commons. If images got removed there, they would then be removed here. FYI, the images that you mentioned were captured from a Youtube video that was released under the cc-by license by a weekly newspaper founded in 1996. I’m not saying that your concern is absolutely invalid, sometimes there’s grey area, just that I don’t think it belongs to here.

As to whether the images are duplicated, different people may have different views and I respect yours. I see different things / views from the different images, but maybe you don’t think so. FYI, those images were selected from dozens of images uploaded, so it’s not a “a picture book or a repository of images” or “intended to duplicate Commons” as you said. Further, whether there’s visual cluster also depends on screen size, browsers used, etc. Different users may have different experience/ opinions, but again, I respect yours. Aside, the images were added the way it was because there seems to be not enough space for them to be effectively presented adjacent to text.

NB. I’m not reinstating the gallery. I do hope I know why I’m still replying here. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Dustfreeworld, I avoid Commons as much as possible; it's a whole 'nother world over there. If you are confident the images have clear copyright, I encourage you to reinstate an image gallery consisting of only three campaign images; that is, not duplicating the Machado image, and not duplicating the Maduro image. The only reason I didn't reinstate a trimmed gallery is I didn't have time to investigate the copyright. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)