Talk:Venezuelan presidential election, 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Venezuelan presidential election, 2006 article.
Article policies
Venezuelan presidential election, 2006 is part of WikiProject Venezuela, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Venezuela and Venezuela-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.


This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

why is the word incumbent part of this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.150.138 (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Need to update

Restrictions placed on other candidates:

Sandy 13:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone considered yet how to handle this information? I don't fully understand what's going on. Sandy 01:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Borges

Why is the LA Times reporting Borges as the running mate, although none of the Venezuelan papers are reporting that ?? Sandy 21:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There is not such thing as a running mate in Venezuela's election. Vicepresident is not elected. See the Constitution, art 236. JRSP 01:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Removing the sentence to here, while trying to figure out what the LA Times was up to. I left the references, since they explain some of his positions, which could be expanded upon.
According to the Los Angeles Times, a spokesperson for Julio Borges announced that he will be the running mate. Borges is a lawyer, TV talk-show host, and former federal deputy, representing Justice First (Primero Justicia).
Sandy 01:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it is a deal between Rosales and Borges JRSP 01:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
If it were, it doesn't seem like the LA Times would be the first to know, while the Venezuelan papers have nothing. Oh, well ! Sandy 01:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Borges said it is a possibility [1]. This can be the origin of the confusion JRSP 13:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the source; at least the LA Times wasn't completely off. Best to see how this works out before adding it back to the article ??? Sandy 13:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
IMO, the important information is that Borges is supporting Rosales. The VP designation has little to do with the election JRSP 23:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you want me to add something back in to that effect, or wait til news becomes more clear? (I haven't read today's news yet.) Sandy 23:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
We should better wait. Anyway, there is no VP info for the other runners JRSP 00:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cecilia Sosa

I think she is backing Rosales [2] but perhaps ccs1830 has some fresh news from tv or radio JRSP 13:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. I haven't had time yet to read today's news, so I just tagged it so we could check it later. Sometimes breaking news gets us into trouble, like the LA Tims on Borges as "running mate". Also, silly me, when I tagged it, I didn't know Caracas1830 was the editor who had added it, so I wasn't sure if it was legit. I should have checked the edit history. Sandy 13:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake[3]. Her party's website did'nt say anything about her support for Rosales.(Caracas1830 20:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC))
One more thing, Rosales promised Borges that if he wins, Borges will be his Vice-President. That's not exactly a running mate as it is un the US. But we'll have to wait and see. (Caracas1830 20:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC))
Caracas, do you have a source? If so, we'll add it back in, along with the LA Times article. Sandy 21:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest to wait some time until those announcements become public and official.(Caracas1830 23:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] New Candidates

Source is [4]. I preferred not putting it in main article as things are changing everyday. Please check translation JRSP 22:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Isbelia León, quien, en representación de la Institución Fuerza y Paz,
    • Hard to tell if that should be Force and Peace, or Strength and Peace. Strength has a more positive sound to it, Force carries implications?
  • Partido Nacional Venezuela Tercer Milenio
    • Might be better as National Venezuelan Third Millenium Party.
  • Movimiento Liberal Pueblo Unido;
    • Liberal United Community Movement ??? (Pueblo seems more like "community" than "people"?)
  • Por querer a Venezuela
    • For Love of Venezuela (For Loving sounds, um, sexual :-)
  • Not so sure, just my ideas, Sandy 23:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Pueblo translates to either town or people. In this context "people" is the best translation. Actually both "pueblo" and "people" come from latin populus JRSP 23:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Partido Nacional Venezuela Tercer Milenio: Perhaps "National Party Third Millenium Venezuela". I think "Venezuela" relates more to "3rd Mil." Than to "Ntnl Party" JRSP 00:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I see, then how about Venezuelan Third Milennium National Party ? Sandy
Two more candidates: Alejandro José Suárez Luzardo of Partido Sentir Nacional (National Feeling Party?) and Lucrecia Carolina Contreras de León por iniciativa propia (self-nominated?) [5]. We may remove the ref for Irigoyen as the info is on the cne page. No mention of er conde perhaps it is just a joke. Deadline for candidates is on Thursday JRSP 00:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Translating these names is much too hard: how about just leaving the obscure ones in Spanish? The main political parties have English translations, but if we try to come up with something for all of these others in English, we could make ourselves crazy. I can't come up with a good translation for Partido Sentir National. On Contreras de Leon, I would think it would just be OK to say "independent" as we do in the USA, when someone isn't affiliated with a party ? Sheesh, what are these people gaining by running for Pres against someone guaranteed to win <scratching my head> ... what are they thinking? Sandy 00:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Define term

Can someone define the presidential term in the lead paragraph?

A president will be elected for a six-year term, beginning day Month year and ending day Month year.

Sandy 23:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Constitution Art. 231: Term is Jan 10, 2007 to Jan 9(10?), 2013 JRSP 00:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ad?

This prose reads as an ad. It is also an open invitation to a 1Gb :-) Chávez proposal:

Rosales said that the backbone of his government program will be the social arena, saying it will be a "sound and well defined" program, including a "fair allocation of oil revenues by means of two axes – minimum wage for all unemployed and direct contribution to the underprivileged".[1][2][3]

JRSP 01:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No, not an ad, just currently misplaced, since the article format wasn't ready for it yet. Almost all election series on Wiki have sections which explain the platform of each candidate. We haven't yet gotten far enough along to have set up a separate section explaining the positions of each candidate. That text was from one of the sources, explaining his campaign platform, so I left it there for when we eventually set up a platform of positions for each candidate. We should think about the page format before we get too much further along. It will eventually include items such as:
  • Campaign platforms
  • Poll information
  • Information about ad campaigns
  • Endorsements
  • etc ...
Have a look at some of the other election articles, e.g.; Connecticut United States Senate election, 2006. If we plan it better from the beginning, we can avoid having the kind of messy Table of Contents that article has. Hopefully we can keep it more basic than what that page became. Sandy 01:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
For example, this list of who supports him looks awful, and could eventually go in a List of endorsements for Rosales:
If you want, we can begin to set up Campaign Platforms and Endorsements into the structure of the article now ??? PS, I'm going to add back in the references to the content you moved, since one of them gave that list. Sandy 01:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Another PS: One thing we'll have to decide on – whether to list an "Other candidates" section for the candidates other than the two principle contenders. Other articles on elections do that, so there is a precedent. Sandy 01:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I prefer a good layout from the beginning. Be bold and do it! JRSP 01:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
You don't think it's too soon to set it up? When is the CNE registration deadline? Also, we have to make a tough decision: do we include basically the two main candidates, in their own sections, and everyone else as an "Other candidate" ? Sandy 01:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Another PS: we should insist on a reference for everything, but particularly the Endorsements list, so it won't get out of hand. Sandy 01:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
We can wait for the polls for the two main & others decision. But a basic structure like the one you proposed above sounds fine. Given your experience with the Connecticut article I'm sure you're ideas are good. Other editors can modify the layout anyway JRSP 01:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I put the structure in place, but I can't source the list of Rosales' endorsements. I don't know who has added those over time, but I can spend some time looking for them: another day. If others can cite the Endorsements for Rosales, it would help. Sandy 03:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


Please look at the edit I made *after* I put the structure in place. In that edit, I moved all of the "Other candidates" to their own section, leaving only Chavez and Rosales in the "Main candidates" section. It looks better and will probably work better over the long run, but if this change is too controversial, it can be reverted - that's why I did it last. Sandy 03:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed structure

  • Lead
  • Table of Contents
  • Candidates (at most one-sentence bio and one-sentence campaign platform)
    • List all candidates in this section
  • Campaign platform (more detail on campaign platform, but list only Chavez, Rosales here)
    • Chavez
    • Rosales
  • Endorsements (list, require references, only 2 main candidates)
    • Chavez
    • Rosales
  • Other candidates
    • More detailed bio, campaign platform, and endorsements on all other candidates
  • Polls
  • Ads
  • Timeline
    • Primaries
    • etcetera
  • Concerns over electoral registry
  • etc

Sandy 01:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

JRSP, you forgot to fill out the detail on a ref named ElUniversal20060619

I think this is the missing ref, so I added it (not sure, since it doesn't match the 20060619?) [6] Sandy 00:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
ah ha ! it was 0819 - the date. No wonder I was confused! Sandy 01:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to reference Rosales' endorsements: I know those are the parties that are behind him, but the articles mention the names of the persons, not the parties, so I don't know know what source to use for his endorsements. Sandy 00:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem, only ref if controversy arises. BTW I have a problem with UNION the Francisco Arias Cárdenas party. It links to a dab page JRSP 00:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Check here - very incomplete: List of political parties in Venezuela. Sandy 00:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not there, perhaps we better remove the wikilink JRSP 01:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess so: but maybe someone will work on creating all of those articles, now that they are all mentioned here. Sandy 01:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
What about [[Union Party (Venezuela)|Union Party]]?. Same for Socialist League JRSP 01:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Those work - I just don't know where to find info to write the articles, and then they also have to be added in to the List page. Sandy 01:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rosales endorsements

I don't know where to find the 20 mentioned here: [7] "El candidato unitario de la oposición, Manuel Rosales, inscribió hoy formalmente su candidatura a las elecciones presidenciales, respaldada por más de 20 organizaciones políticas." Maybe someone else will fill them in. Sandy 01:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry they will appear in the news or cne page more sooner than later JRSP 01:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Here it is [8] JRSP 23:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't see this until after I'd entered El Nacional, and then had an edit conflict. I started an abstention category: please double check that I got everything, because of the edit conflict. Sandy 23:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Let me see what I can get on Resistencia Civil. In google I only get hits about Mexico and López Obrador JRSP 23:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that Resistencia Civil is not for Rosales.[9] JRSP 23:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Should we wait for clarification from others (I don't know who originally added them to the list), or go ahead and delete? And, do they go in Abstention? Sandy 23:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
In the ref (Jul 30) DAR Jr says no Chávez, no mainstream opposition, no Conde. And I don't read any endorsment or call to abstention. Better delete, but DAR is a political maverick you never know JRSP 00:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Putting Smith, Rausseo info here, not sure what to do with it yet. http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/08/21/en_pol_art_21A769219.shtml Sandy 20:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Smith is backing Rosales [10] JRSP 16:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
It's on El Universal, but not yet on their English page. Maybe they haven't translate it yet. I'll wait until we have an English-language ref to add the ref. Sandy 16:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion of Chávez platform

I'm going to work on expanding this from the info in the source; need help with reviewing translation ... currently, we have only:

Chávez campaign will be based on the defense of sovereignty. (Unión Radio. Campaña de Chávez estará basada en la defensa de la soberanía. (21 August 2006) Retrieved August 21,2006. (Spanish))

Proposed:

Rafael Lacava, Chávez's campaign manager, says that the campaign will be based on defending Venezuela's national sovereignty and promoting world peace, in contrast to the imperialist policies of George W. Bush. According to Unión Radio, Lacava emphasized that [Chávez's government] is "pacifist and totally committed to peace" and that Chávez is a proponent of peace. He added that Venezuelans should understand that they are threatened by the United States, and that the government will have a pro-armament policy as prevention against the threat that hangs over Venezuela.
Only the first two paragraphs of the source refer directly to the campaign. All the rest looks more like Lacava's opinions JRSP 01:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

New proposed (first two paras only):

Chávez's campaign manager, Rafael Lacava, said that the campaign will be based on defending Venezuela's national sovereignty and promoting world peace, in contrast to the imperialist policies of George W. Bush. According to Unión Radio, Lacava added that a campaign theme will be the "freedom of our country after having stopped being a North American colony".
This is it JRSP 01:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Should we reverse the order of the two paragraphs, so that we have Chávez speaking first, followed by his campaign manager in the second paragraph? Right now, we have his campaign manager as the principle focus of the paragraph. Sandy 02:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diez Millones por el Buche

What's the exact thrust of that slogan? "Down the throat" in English gives me an idea of violence, forcefeeding. Is the Spanish that violent? Is he promising to ram 10m votes down the opposition's collective throat or what? Bolivian Unicyclist 13:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

PS, yes, I do believe that an accurate interpretation would be as you say, a promise to ram them down their throats. Look at all of his dialogue, and the way he speaks in general. It fits. He appeals to the lowest and most vulgar use and phrasing in Spanish. An example would be the things he said in reference to Condoleeza Rice, which are just embarassing for the leader of a country. Or the time he said (on TV or radio?) that his wife was "going to get hers" when he got home that night. Sandy 15:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Not really, it could be used for instance for the result of a baseball game ( e.g. Los Leones de Caracas le metieron 10 carreras por el buche al Magallanes ) JRSP 14:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Which, in the context of baseball, can mean the same as "meterlo per el culo" (shoving it up their butts). Por el buche can also refer to something like a chipmunk with its cheeks bloated full; a mouthful. A better analogy is, when you're playing soccer, it's used when a goal is scored between the goalie's legs, with his legs open -- le metieron el goal por el buche. The problem is that this is a reflection of Chavez's incredibly low-class and vulgar way of speaking, so there isn't really a decent translation. Given the choices, I think "down their throats" is a better translation then up their butts or between their legs. Agree, as JRSP says, it's not violent, just a reflection of Chavez's incredibly disgusting and vulgar way of speaking. Sandy 14:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
More: the exact translation of buche, according to Chicago dictionary, is mouthful. Another example is when a pelican (alcatraz) has a mouthful of fish that it hasn't swallowed yet, and you can see it in its pouch (el alcatraz tiene el pez en el buche) Sandy 14:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Folkloric but not vulgar, you can say "por el buche" when talking to a lady, not the same as "por el culo". It basically means "you have to eat this even if you don't like it" JRSP 14:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I think that's a fair distinction (culo vs. buche), but it's still a very vulgar, crude, base way for a leader of a country to speak. Sandy 14:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent explanations. The "between the goalie's legs" analogy made it all clear. Stick with "down their throats", then, unless someone gets inspired? Bolivian Unicyclist 15:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

When referring to body parts Spanish uses the determinative articles where English uses possessive adjectives: "me lavo los dientes"="I wash my teeth". "Their throats" is a better translation that "the throats" JRSP 15:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
"By the mouth"?, "down their throats"?, the vodka is good but the meat is rotten :-) JRSP 01:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I say, revert. Nothing against anons, but they really should read the talk page. I'm still open to coming up with something better, but that's not it. Sandy 01:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] la libertad de nuestro país de haber dejado de ser una colonia

Uno de los temas trascendentales de la campaña es la defensa de nuestra soberanía, de la libertad de nuestro país de haber dejado de ser una colonia norteamericana

I had a crack at rewording that earlier, but I'm still not happy. He speaks about defending two things: (1) nuestra soberanía, and (2) de la libertad de nuestro país de haber dejado de ser una colonia norteamericana -- which I read as meaning (those discomfited by the split infinitive might want to turn away at this point) "our country's freedom to no longer be...", ie, its freedom to choose to no longer be a colony, with the haber dejado meaning that it has already made that choice.

(Did you make it this far?) Maybe a better translation would be "the defense of the decision that our country has taken to no longer be...", "the defense of our country's decision to cease being"... although I'm still not convinced; bit more polish needed there. Help? Bolivian Unicyclist 15:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could help, but I can tell from your edits throughout these articles that you're a much better grammarian than I :-) The only thing I would say is to not combine the two thoughts into one: my sense is that they are two separate thoughts. The best option to me seems to be "our country's freedeom to no longer be ... " I will watch for a translation in the English page of El Universal, because then we could go with that as a reliable source (rather than our own translation). Sandy 15:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

(Thanks for the compliment.) I changed it to "the country's freedom to no longer be..." in the article, but I still read that as being attached to la defensa de. In fact, perhaps I was wrong describing it above as "two things" -- you could also quite happily read la libertad de nstro país... as a gloss of just what he meant by "nuestra soberanía". Bolivian Unicyclist 16:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps in this context "libertad" could be translated as "choice" : "... the choice of our country of having ceased to be a North American colony" JRSP 16:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
True, that works too. Hard for me to tell what to do here. Sandy 18:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Wait for more opinions, present translation is fine in the sense that it faithfully interprets the Spanish original. Fine tuning the translation is good, but we are discussing small details JRSP 18:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced campaign slogans

Chávez launched his campaign with a campaign slogan of "10 million votes down their throats",
presentsa motto similar to the one of the parliamentary elections of December of 2005, "10 million by the crop" and is allusive to the amount of votes that this candidate hopes to agglutinate in the presidential election.
The motto is Atrévete with Manuel Rosales, which has a song of Atrévete title being a re-make of the song of the same title of the group puertoriqueño Calle 13.
With this expression they hope to agglutinate to most of the competing parties the government of Chavez, also in background of the campaign have the expression:
por 26 millones de Venezolanos "by 26 million Venezuelans",
making reference to the number of persons of Venezuela.

There might be something salvagable in there: hard to tell, and it's completely unsourced. I can't be the one doing all the reverts, but we need to get back to the sourced text, and then see if there's anything we can work with in this text. Sandy 02:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It overwrote a couple of pre-existing, duly referenced paragraphs, and it is extraordinarily impenetrable ("by the crop" = croup?). This revert's on me. Bolivian Unicyclist 02:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks :-) Can we salvage anything? (Don't you get tired of fixing my dates and formatting?) Sandy 02:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

A search on Rosales and Atrévete turns up a lot. It does appear to be a campaign slogan, but I don't know how to translate it: [11][12] [13]

"Salvar la patria, por un nuevo tiempo, llegó Manuel y éste es el momento", cantaban sus seguidores al ritmo del 'reggaetón' "Atrévete", lema de la campaña electoral de Rosales.

Con pancartas que decían "Por 26 millones de venezolanos" y "Atrévete a tener una Venezuela libre", la marcha transcurrió sin incidentes por el centro de Caracas, mientras los simpatizantes de Rosales cantaban, se abrazaban y hacían la señal de victoria.

[14] Quienes apoyan al gobernador en su objetivo de llegar al Palacio de Miraflores presentaban pancartas que expresaban el eslogan de la campaña de Rosales "Atrévete" además, de palabras de apoyo y felicitaciones para el candidato presidencial Manuel Rosales.

Sandy 03:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

(post edit conflict; following message now largely irrelevant) Aw, don't make me read it again... Someone does appear to be using Atrévete con Manuel Rosales as a slogan, but I don't know if that's an official site (this seems to imply so). And these Calle 13 guys appear to have an article. So there's a couple of potential data points for inclusion, but I've honestly not been following developments over the past few days, and I'd rather leave the decision to you and JRSP, with your fingers more squarely on the pulse of the situation. (As for fiddling about with formats and italics and stuff (was that date yours?) -- uh, sometimes, like now, that's the limit of what I've got to offer.) Bolivian Unicyclist 03:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Atrévete con Manuel: "take a dare with M"? "be bold with M"? "take a stand with M"? Yup, another untranslatable Venezuelan campaign slogan. Bolivian Unicyclist
I'd say that's his slogan :-) But I don't know how to make a jingle out of it in English. It doesn't work in English as a jingle/slogan, so I don't know how to write the section. Maybe something will show up in the English press. Taking a dare sounds like he's a gamble, and that's not the intent. Don't know what to do ... Sandy 03:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National convergence

We still have no source for their endorsement: is anyone able to track this down? Sandy 18:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

AD - Trade union faction? Meaning, not the entire party? So what do we do with that? [15] Sandy 03:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Violations of campaign rules

Up to 87 claims of violation of rules on advertising. Sandy 22:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PBS poll

I reverted the unsourced (although it could be sourced) edit about the latest PBS poll, as the previous poll controversy isn't relevant here. It's one of many polls, there will be more, and whether they got it right or wrong years ago isn't a controversy we need to cover in this article. New account --> SandyG 17:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rallies section (POV)

The rallies section is completly unsourced. The whole section, including the selection of photos, shows a pro-Rosales bias JRSP 01:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned out all the unsourced editorializing and original research (hence removed the POV tag), while also doing some copyediting and cleanup, and restoring some sort of timeline order to the sections. I got into an edit conflict with you, and since I had made major changes, I overrode your edit - I went back and checked, and don't think there's anything I need to fix from the edit conflict, but please have a look. SandyG 20:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Done, thanks for the warning JRSP 20:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keller poll is not voter intention...

it is his own little theory, and he claims he was misinterpreted.

"Keller afirma que fue mal interpretado cuando explicó que el tamaño del mercado de Chávez es de 52% mientras que el de Rosales es de 48%: "No me refería a la intención de voto sino a la segmentación política". A su juicio una situación de mercado casi mitad-mitad "pone las condiciones básicas para que pueda ganar cualquiera"."

[16] Flanker 20:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Ramirez/PDVSA issue

It is not an electoral but a political issue, nowhere does it state who to vote for and the CNE has not even recieved a complaint about it

http://buscador.eluniversal.com/2006/11/05/pol_ava_05A800383.shtml Flanker 21:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as this is a sticky issue I want to see how it is justified as a n electoral issue. Since Nowhere in the speech is the election or voter intention mentioned. Flanker 05:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


It is very much an electoral issue. PDVSA resources are used for funding Chavez campaign, PDVSA's cars, trucks, are being used for the elections. All workers have to go around in red. You need to listen to the whole speech to see it is very much about elections.

There is very strong evidence that the workers are told to support the process and the president, but no real evidence has surfaced that they were toldo to vote for what, in itself ilegal. That is video in a nutshell. Not to mention they are barely 0.1% of the population and would never decide an election.Flanker 18:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No single group of people is enough to win any election, but by forcing group by group you have enough votes. The same thing is happening in every governmental institution. They did it for the referendum and although it is not so easy now, they are doing it again. Besides: are you going to say that Ramirez really had to say "you have to VOTE" to prove the case? Isn't it enough to say that those who are not "for the process" are going to be taken out from PDVSA "a carajazos"? Or am I quoting something here out of context (I listened to the whole thing as presented later by the government). Isn't it enough to say PDVSA does not want the 'ni-ni' (undecided)? Isn't it enough to say that PDVSA is all-all red? Excuse me, but in any other country of the world (perhaps with the exception of Belarus, Zimbabwe, Cuba and North Korea) if some head of an institution says "this institution is all for the movement of the government/all blue/all white/all red" that person would be considered as hindering the freedom of the workers. You should be able to say workers NEED to support the government as a whole and the country's progress (nice if Venezuelans were having that), but you cannot say they have to be RED (and you are now going to come with some excuse about red, red being a symbol of something universal, etc, right? Everybody should be red or go to Miami...). It is incredible how you go behind literalism ("they should have used the word "vote" to be accussed of influencing how people "vote") to claim being true to the Wikipedia principles of impartiality. Believe in Chavez is like a religion, right? A good excercise would be to spend more time with people of different ideas...perhaps outside Venezuela (except Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe and Belarus). Everybody would see someone saying the words Ramirez said as total threat and coercion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.204.197 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

However inmoral or ilegal the action it has to be proven it belongs in an article about an election which just by reading the speech critically was not about it, under wikipedia standards it appears just filing an accusation may be enough... but at least it is filed, second it is a slippery slope fallacy that if it happens in one area it happens everywhere, PDVSA is the goose that lays golden eggs. Flanker 23:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Por el Buche addon

The issue at stake is not that Chavez said it which is verfiable, the issue is if it is the campaign slogan which is NOT.

This is what nearly all campaign propaganda says on the street:

http://static.flickr.com/18/70846586_291ae3f421_o.jpg http://static.flickr.com/53/215307646_3dcd1878e6_m.jpg

Flanker 05:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No rebuttal yet... You have to show a reliable source calling it the campaign slogan... Flanker 00:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Issues in quoting the Venanalysis article.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2018

I really don't think we should find the most anti-REP quote and stick it in the prose, both representatives say the same, that there are errors but that they do not benefit either side, specially the government Flanker 06:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blogs as Source

Althought I do not support use of a blog as a primary source, I don't find anything wrong when it is merely supporting information found on a credible source. As you know Blogs are becoming more and more important in this day of mass flow communication and the influence that blogs hold have been clearly seen when they exposed the Dan Rather investigation of 60 Minutes. The 13th 4postle

You can discuss this on the Verifiability policy talk page. –JRSP 10:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Just because a source is biased does not meen that it is dubious, it is dubious if the source has no fact checking and no editorial oversight and the entire article I use is about fact-checking. Blogs can do this and have done this in the past The 13th 4postle

[edit] Alright we need to do a logistical explanation of the whole voting process

We need to add every detail worthy of an encyclopedia here is a good source with everything needed [17] Flanker 16:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dates of the references should not be wikilinked

Remember that wikipedia backtracks links, I don't want the article of 8 November to trackback to this article simpley because it is the date of me retrieving the Universal article. Too much noise. Flanker 00:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? MOS:DATE does not list references dates as an exception (only headers, dab pages and quotations). Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, a recently featured article, has all ref dates linked. MOS:DATE#Dates containing a month and a day guideline says "If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should almost always be linked to allow readers’ date preferences to work, displaying the reader’s chosen format". I must agree with you that linking is not the most elegant solution for the date format problem JRSP 02:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but the date that you read the article is by far completely irrelevant to an encyclopedia. For example the date an editor saw and referenced Atrevete con Manuel Rosales is being linked is being tracked [18] definitely creating worthless overhead, granted it is more important overall not just here. Flanker 23:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree there should only be relevant links but it appears linking month-dates pairs is standard in featured articles (check recent FAs), I believe a better solution could be a template like {{DATE|month|dateNumber}} but for now it appears to be the solution for the date/month format problem. Not a very good solution, specially considering that most users do not set a date pref. JRSP 23:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rausseo

I agree Benjamín Rausseo should not be considered a "main candidate": Very low vote intention, he may deserve a special mention due to his notability but there is very little info about his platform, campaign activities, etc JRSP 21:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well for one before he used to be a candidate, he is now neither a candidate or main. It just messes up the article to have such a footnote prominently at the forefront.Flanker 22:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Benjamín Rausseo is not a main candidate today after he has been for the entire election? Come on? You guys didn't have a problem with him being there earlier? Why now? The 13th 4postle
Revision as of 02:32, 16 November 2006 shows that when Benjamín Rausseo first bowed out Super Flanker still thought he should have been mentioned there. I don't understand why he has changed his mind today after I added my revision yesterday.
I never stated he was a main candidate, just that that is where his name was so I added the news, I never made my mind until today. Flanker 23:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Why should Rausseu remain a Main Candidate? That question has to be answered for him to remain. Flanker 20:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Not even a candidate, he had some media attention for being a well-known comedian and this is all, I support moving him to the "other candidates" section and adding "Piedra" to Rosales endorsements JRSP 21:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
This is what Benjamin Rausseo had to say when he quit. He mad eit clear that he is not with either Chavez nor Rosales. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hF0M3Lr2pg (72.181.194.88 08:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Polls

I put the polls in a table, but the references still need some cleanup. I also added missing polls from the Spanish Wikipedia, but some of those had broken links, in that case I didn't add them.--enano (Talk) 22:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] www.petroleumworld.com

I am not very sure this site is reliable[19]. It sounds strange that this poll was not mentioned by mainstream Venezuelan media specially considering it is a "man bites dog" news JRSP 23:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I searched "survey fast" in google news and found very few hits: petroleum.world, two others (infolatam & univision) mention it as a survey appearing in petroleum world. An independent RS is necessary for this poll to be mentioned in the article. JRSP 15:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Petroleumworld is the www.Vheadline.com (currently moving) on the other side of the spectrum, neither are reviewed by a third party editor, nor does anyone vouch for them in the MSM.Flanker 16:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1.4 million

Globovision is a very credible source why is their number not being believed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The 13th 4postle (talk • contribs) 16:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Globovision attributes the figure to the organizers, they do not say they make the estimate themselves JRSP 16:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention the gov states 2 million for their own. We should strive for neutrality.Flanker 16:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I would prefer to avoid involved parties estimates and use only reliable independent 3rd parties. JRSP 17:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree.Flanker 17:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Where in the translation does it say attibutes to the event organizers. I think you translated it wrong.
'En un millón cuatrocientas mil personas calculan los organizadores la asistencia de la "Avalancha Tricolor".' JRSP 22:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This estimate should be removed, now there are 2.5 biased against and 1 biased for Chavez, lets keep the neutral estimate from AP and Reuters, foreign and unbiased sources.Flanker 23:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

As I already said above, I support using only reliable independent 3rd parties, this "million" figures from both sides are absolutely unreliable, it may be good for propaganda but not for a wp article JRSP 00:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Honestly they are about as unreliable as the estimates from AP and Reuters they don't even give a good estimate hundreds of thousands could be anywhere from 100,000 to 900,000 which is udderly ridicoulous. For all anyone knows it could be millions for both. If Globovision and VTV provide a more accurate estimate then it should mentioned as well as the ones from Reuters [USER: The 13th 4postle]
So completely random figures are reliable? frankly their wild spray is more neutral than biased "preciee" numbers. Flanker 01:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proper Comma Placement

In english we use a commas instead of decimals and vice versa.

In the Wikipedia Manual of style it says under Scietific style.

"For units of measure, use SI units as the main units in science articles, unless there are compelling historical or pragmatic reasons not to do so (for example, Hubble’s constant should be quoted in its most common unit of (km/s)/Mpc rather than its SI unit of s−1). For other articles, Imperial, U.S. customary, or metric units may be used as the main units of measurement. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement for further guidance. The Wikipedia rule for commas and periods in numbers is, for example 12,345,678.901 — contrary to Continental style."

[User:The 13th 4postle]

I agree you have a point JRSP 17:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Rosales rally image is not public domain

The copyright holder is Boyd. Flanker 19:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah well he gave me permission. So its all good. The 13th 4postle

Do you have his permission in writting? you have to put what he said, public domain is a very different animal. Flanker 12:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Union Radio? A source?

Union Radio looks like a credible source? It didn't look like an editorial but, a news report. User:The 13th 4postle

Union Radio is a verifiable sorce, but a deeply biased one, you added the organizers that give an outrageous number for Rosales, I add one for the government that conveniently tops it, now you add one that hypes one and downgrades the others, Enough bias we go with neutral sources now per WP:NPOV Flanker 22:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
If Union Radio, and the State media can't be used because you believe they are biased then anything could be taken down because one could make the same argument about Reuters, AP, CNN and especially FOX news and The New York Times. You open the door to any source not being used. User:The 13th 4postle
Nope that is incorrect. AP, Reuters are neutral sources. Government, Globo, organizers and Union Radio are not. Flanker 22:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem is not Union Radio: They report Italo Luongo made an estimation, they did not make the estimation themselves, an attribution problem again. The problem is that Luongo is not neutral and as far as I know he is an expert in foreign affairs, not in estimating crowd sizes. BTW, the link to union radio is not working. JRSP 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Well then that's all you have to say, don't just take it down for the previous reasons. The 13th 4postle
Can you elaborate on that? Actually, I am saying that Luongo is not neutral (candidate to the National Assembly for Un Solo Pueblo, a party supporting Rosales) and therefore his estimate should be deleted, specially considering it is not properly attributed JRSP 02:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JRSP and Flanker

Why is it that you two only seem to provide information that is pro-chavez? The only polls you guys metion have Chavez in the lead by 20 points or more, when links can not be found for other polls you delete them instead of trying to find them. I see both of you are from Venezuela. Why so much interest in English wikipedia? You aren't native speakers as is obvious by the grammar mistakes both of you make regurlarly as well as use of SI units for measurement. The reason (in case you were wondering) that I am so Pro-Rosales is because this article as well as others seem to have a pro-Chavez slant to them and I felt I need to counter balance it. Wikipedia was not meant for this purpose. I don't like putting biased information or biased resources or information that favors one over another, but you have forced me because you neglect certain aspects and emphasize others. Why don't you on the brotherhood that wikipedia is founded on, help other people in research on both Chavez and Rosales and just make a good article on the election. The 13th 4postle

Because there is noise and there is neutrality, if we add AP it is because it is neutral and respected, when others add CECA and Annandt which has long links to the Rosales campaign it is propaganda, for it to be pro-chavez it would have to be Chavez polling, like say NAOR which is nowhere to be found. So if you add up Chavez - Opo polls you get a deep negative number, same for rally sizes, both were similar, both were REPORTED BY NEUTRAL sources to be similar, but the opposition puts out propaganda should Wikipedia follow? It is biased from your perspective but unbiased from a NPOV.Flanker 18:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not just talking about polls, and in any case how many of them are sponsored by the government. Zogby..etc..etc, PDVSA sponsored a poll and the other day they said they wanted PDVSA to be "Roja Rojita". How come you don't research that and take down those polls. I'm talking about the article in general as well as others and it is my personel opinion that AP and Reuters have not been neutral when talking about this election. The 13th 4postle
Yes we know that you do not consider Reuters and AP neutral, but the rest of the world does and so does wikipedia. This is just a microcosm of the rest.Flanker 20:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sabotage

As of today (I saw it in real time) this page is being subject to sabotage. The one I noticed was that the some of the poll results (recoverable from elsewhere) had been inverted. Admins: please take appropiate action.

--Juanco 19:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it is pretty bad, we should still keep a close lookout for the poll invertions or vandalism since they are the easiest and effective way to paint a different picture. Flanker 20:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image of Chaviztas marching.

This image is digitized "to reproduce a hisotircal event". This is someone's interpretation of what happened and it is a very touchy subject because many people (specially in the oposition) take pride i the numbers of their marches compared to the ones of chavez. I dont know about you guys, but this kind of makes the article lose credibility. (Antonio.sierra 21:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

The image comes from a government source and that is certainly more verifiable than a flickr image (taken without permision the source itself would have no problem), also pride should not be an issue either. Flanker 01:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
There are enough biased News Agencies all over and the last thing we need in Wikipedia is us getting personally biased about what news agencies we chose to cite and emphasize. For instance in this amazing picture of the Chavez march, Why don't you try getting the Chavez march picture from the ABN or whatever institution it came from in the absolute most high-resolution available and find some computer science guys to do some image processing (lots of research going on about that at many universities) on it and find out if it has been edited? Anyone Pro-Chavez and Anti-Chavez KNOWS the Journalism ethics of VTV, ABN, etc as well as the private media outlets, so I think Wikipedia should be a tool where we constantly take the center of the stage and tell the story BOTH sides are not telling. You don't even need Adobe Photoshop CS2 to add 'redness' around in the streets and how convenient for them to release a mediocre quality picture to the public. Images are powerful. Remember that AP image several of columns of smoke rising up in Lebanon due to Israeli air-strikes that turned out to be fake? Some video-blogger caught that. That is what needs to be done over here, and not just the pictures but all the facts and characters involved. This is supposed to NOT resemble newspapers or tv stations. Ive seen incredible articles on Wikipedia about ongoing events, especially elections. This article lacks objectivity. --72.200.2.51 03:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Results.

Oficial partial results given by the venezuelan CNE (national electoral council) are 61% for Chavez against 38% for Rosales with 78% of votes counted. When should results be added? (Antonio.sierra 02:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC))


[edit] Map.

Feel free to use my map http://www.electoralgeography.com/photo/maps/2006-venezuela-presidential.gif I will update it if there are changes after all the votes are counted. More maps are going to be at http://www.electoralgeography.com/en/countries/v/venezuela/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kireev (talk • contribs) 06:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Re:

It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity. ~Alexander Hamilton --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wide margin

it's silly that the media is reporting this victory by Chavez as a "wide margin", it seems like a biased attempt to diminish the overwhelming victory that occured. According to Landslide victory, wins of over 60% are historically called "landslides". We shouldn't follow the media's bias here and call it what it is. i'm not a chavez supporter by the way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.210.129.158 (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Not a big deal IMO, the numbers speak for themselves JRSP 02:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polls section

I've just modified the table to format refs footnote style as the rest of the article. I also checked refs, replaced some dead links and added a note to the last two rows JRSP 19:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Election observers

There's a section listing the various international observers, but nowhere does it say whether or not these observers deemed the election "free and fair." Would you be able to locate this information, JRSP? It's rather difficult to find anything in English. -- WGee 09:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, not that it would make any practical difference, but would it be possible to find the results with 100% of the polling stations counted? Then the article would look a tad more professional and refined. -- WGee 09:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
There are some preliminary reports from int'l observers[20] but definitive reports usually take some time. Regarding the results, there are still 1% of votes to be tallied from overseas manual polling stations. These are the last results[21] but I wouldn't update until we have the 100%. Patience, everyone was in Xmas vacation :-) JRSP 13:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Campaign platforms

The description of Chavez's campaign platform is quite vague, and the inclusion of Chavez's unsubstantive, anti-US rhetoric does not provide any insight into his proposed policies. The description of Rosales's platform is much more detailed, but some statements are still rather vague, and the section omits his stance on several important issues. For example, what did he propose to do about Venezuela's state-owned companies, particularly in the oil sector? Did he want to fully or partially privitize some of them or re-structure them? Did he want to drastically cut government spending and lower taxes? Et cetera. Anyway, you know the issues better than I do JRSP, and since I can't speak Spanish, perhaps you could find some more information about their platforms? Sorry to burden you so much, but you're the only Spanish-speaker who is heavily involved in this article right now. Flanker, unfortunately, has markedly reduced his activity on Wikipedia since the Chavez fiasco. -- WGee 09:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Chávez platform was basically deepening what he has been doing until now and Rosales's was rather vague indeed, basically the Mi Negra card. Rosales needed to get a lot of votes from low-income classes so he avoided speaking of cutting gov spending or privatization of basic industries and in fact he promised to go on with the misiones. I agree the article needs some work, I'm glad you're interested in it; let me see what I can get. JRSP 13:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)