Talk:2024 Venezuelan presidential election: Difference between revisions

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles Venezuela Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Venezuela, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Venezuela on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VenezuelaWikipedia:WikiProject VenezuelaTemplate:WikiProject VenezuelaVenezuela articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1we220ew71o

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the Main Page in the "In the news" section. You can visit the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from reliable news sources to include recent events. Notice date: 29 July. Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate.

Magi Merlin please read WP:RS, this section which utilizes secondary sources, and refrain from adding non-reliable primary source polling data from outlets which reliable secondary sources describe as not meeting Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now blanking of text cited to highly reliable sources (eg New York Times);[1] I suggest self-reverting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ammend your opening paragraph to explicitly reflect in no uncertain terms the disputed and unconfirmed state of this current affair. Otherwise, you are party to political interference in attempting to convey false semiotics. 50.117.139.153 (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When/if the edit warring stops, this correction still needs to be fixed anew (unlike the other new "pollster"s, Hinterlaces is not new, so the flow is now off). These intervening citations were also lost in edit warring. Magi Merlin could you please engage the talk page here regarding the non-reliability of sources you are using? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are not making progress with regard to how to use and evaluate reliable sources (sample); please use the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia, I agree with you. That user is now blocked for edit warring, but their edits with many unreliable sources and content are still in the article. Those need to be removed. It’s a bit difficult as that user made so many edits (over 100 hundred a day! Obviously not a newbie?!) Do you think we should restore to an earlier version before the disruptive editing? But that would also revert some of the later legitimate edits made by you too (e.g. the nyt reference). --Dustfreeworld (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need to make repairs to the new polling para and see where things stand but have no free time 'til this afternoon ... I don't think the Magi understands WP:RS, and we can't buttress non-RS primary sources with non-independent and dubious secondary sources ... Wikipedia shouldn't be spreading fake news from recently created "pollsters". I'm unsure how to handle Hinterlaces, as it's not a new creation ... will look this afternoon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that Wikipedia shouldn’t be spreading fake news. I’m not sure how to handle ... IMO remove when in doubt. BTW, I’ve updated this page based on the sources in this article. Feel free to check it for errors :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working, but piecemeal today as my time is divided. I was still trying to finish the polling section when the edit warring started ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finished writing the Polling section, will address UNDUE/non-RS content in tables later (I have found no independent source which endorses these "new pollsters" -- fake news -- and note that any secondary sources added are those with ties to the Maduro administration). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, remove this propaganda, or you will continue to be forced to defend it. 50.117.139.153 (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the non-reliable primary source data, in some instances backed only by non-independent secondary sources, per the analysis of reliable secondary sources here.

I left Hinterlaces because, although it has the same issues as others, it is a long-standing pollster (albeit with a record of bias), rather than a newly invented website with no history or track record.

These tables are overly complicated and might be reduced to the main candidates (Maduro, Gonzalez Urrutia, Machado).

Should Magi Merlin/Bolt Kjerag/Dirceu Mag return to editing, they need to engage the talk page to discuss and understand reliability of sources and address the analysis by multiple reliable sources about the origin of these "new pollsters"; see WP:ONUS, the policy regarding addition of disputed content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sock blocked, and has been here before, so other contents should be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Late to this party but for the record, I wish I had caught them and warned you all earlier when their last edit summary mentioned the word soup boxing, which was the same description Bolt Kjerag used to defend their WP:SOAPBOXING on behalf of one particular party in 2024 Pakistani general election. Borgenland (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Borgenland; I am concerned that similar is happening at the es.wikipedia article, but don't really know how to navigage SPI over there. I am seeing involvment at multiple country election articles, suggestive of paid editing (which was always bound to be an issue here). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure also about that, but I think you could either raise it either at the Wiki Village Pump, the Tea House or ANI. That user needs a global block. Borgenland (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can also ping someone to look into it? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I posted at the es.wikipedia talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also suggest some sort of page protection to prevent such crappy edits by bona fide hacks. Borgenland (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there's enough bad activity here to warrant semi-protection, but we can ask Drmies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection from the sock? Meh. It works well against IP disruption, but a decent sock will just get autoconfirmed somewhere else. There's ECP, of course, but this sock is so obvious that that detection should be a problem, now that y'all got a good look at them. And if I were you I'd just revert to this version and start again. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As no one showed up at es.wikipedia to correct the "poll" information, I added it myself there, and flagged the questionable sources (noting that similarly no one showed up to submit a sock puppet investigation at es.wiki, but I don't know how to do that). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found anything indicating reliability on this organization (but I haven't had time to dig deep). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed two entries (of the tables) sourced to El Universal, per WP:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources. BTW, currently there are some entries cited to facebook or X (twitter), should we keep them? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would need investigation ... the article is poor with similar throughout, and I don't have time to fix it all or investigate every instance. Of interest at this point is that socks are active in this article, and there is probably paid editing per viewing the histories of the various socks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I’m glad that you have removed most of the problematic edits added to the Polls section recently. Magi Merlin is a WP:SPA that has made 253 edits to this article in only three days. Checking every instance would likely be a lot of work ... --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are the people adding these sources actually reading them ? [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edmundo Gónzales is the main candidate of the Unitary Platform, the lead should be updated to address that. What could be the right wording? ReyHahn (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ReyHahn the citations in the first sentence of the Polls section may give you the wording you seek ... for example, Reuters and New York Times (Spanish version) specifically refer to Gonzalez Urrutia as the main opposition candidate. I named most of those refs for your re-use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone think that we should remove the section that talks about the Unitary Platform presidential primaries? It is a lot of information that could just be given a link to the 2023 Unitary Platform presidential primaries instead of explaining everything on this page. Thoughts? Ballers1919 (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are far from a WP:PROSESIZE issue, I think it adds context but can be trimmed later if necessary.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NicorzF104 are you familiar with WP:ONUS and WP:BRD ?

The graph you reintroduced here is uncited original research. No idea is given what sources are being used (and we already know most of the polling sources in the article are essentially "fake news"). I removed the graph on 27 June; WP:BRD applies, and WP:ONUS states that "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". Please engage talk and explain your sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original research does not belong to article. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve removed the unsourced graph as there’s no response over a week. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolás Maduro's party is the PSUV, with GPPSB as his coalition. Edmundo González is an independent, and his coalition is the Unitary platform. Either we indicate the party, or the coalition, but the result table show the party for one, and the coalition for the other. When I tried to have both with coalition, it was reverted. When I try for both parties, it's reverted as well. Can we please agree on one or the other? Aréat (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be possible to mention both, but as you say, it should be clear which is which. Kingsif (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's 9:35 pm (Bogotá time), do we have any official results yet to insert as edits? Forich (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

other than exit polls nope 2601:586:5300:E710:C4B8:E6B5:2937:3337 (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://apnews.com/article/5ce255ae90614162590bfe1207d2e1d0

Just got this notification from the AP Joeei101 (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I have removed the "results" from the infobox. The election result is disputed and we still don't have even the full official figures. There is no rush to add numbers to the infobox, I suggest people wait until it's clear what's happening. John Smith's (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons documented in numerous sources, I suggest also that the maps should be removed from the infobox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the "official" results are determined by a wing of Maduro's party and nearly everyone else is calling this illegitimate, I'm not sure it's correct or wise to post them at face value. Minerman30 (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There’s already been evidence of observers being blocked access by the military. I’ve heard that pro-Maduros gangs were stealing ballot boxes. The disparity between exit polls and polls and the actual results is extremely suspicious. 97.81.251.129 (talk) 05:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Minerman30 Exactly. I recall precedent being set when Russia annexed the four Ukrainian oblasts, and someone put the referendum results in an infobox. After lots of discussion in the talk page, the consensus was that the infobox is purely and solely for truthful information. So, the referendum "results" were written in words in the article, and the article cast doubt on the result. The infoboxes were removed.

I ask for permission to remove the vote count from the infobox in this article as they are fabricated. Peter Njeim (talk) 05:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty new to contributing on here so I'm sorry if this sounds dumb, but is it possible to put a disclaimer with the numbers? I'm not sure how likely it is that we will receive the genuine results in the first place. Joeei101 (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joeei101 You can add disclaimers via simply saying they're fraudulent in the article, with references. As for inside the infobox, it's best to remove the numbers entirely, as the Russia annexation referendums precedent set Peter Njeim (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thus far, there's no solid evidence of fraud (at least not any cited in the article or in the news), so I'd say keep the official results for now. Even the US hasn't rejected the results outright, they've just expressed "concern" and so on. If (or probably "when") such evidence emerges, the results can be removed. PtolemyXV (talk) 06:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the reliability of open government data (WP:ROGD) is a tricky issue in Wikipedia and we don't yet have a good policy on how to handle it. It's not easy to see what guideline could or should be developed. So far the data from this election don't yet seem to be open, but they are likely to be OA very soon. The long-term development of a guideline is needed. Boud (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PtolemyXV There's some proof of fraud already. The countries who say they're "concerned" are being diplomatic.

Proof of fraud:

1. Receipts from electronic voting machines showing Gonzalez flipping Maduro-strongholds by wide margins (one of many shared by this individual): https://x.com/OrlvndoA/status/1817706326836801776
2. Some witnesses shared figures that a Maduro-stronghold flipped to Gonzalez (Venezuela election, as it happened: Maduro declared winner, González claims victory | AP News)
3. The Edison Research exit poll showing 65% for Gonzalez and 31% for Maduro (conducted illegally due to ban on exit polling (specifically enacted to prevent detection of fraud)): https://www.edisonresearch.com/edison-research-conducts-exit-poll-in-venezuela
4. The CNE's fabricated "results" are beyond the margin of error of public opinion polling prior to the election. Public opinion does not change 40 points in one week. The exit poll by Edison Research matches the public opinion polling as well, showing that 1 week after the polling deadline, the public opinion remained the same. The fact so many different polling agencies reached similar results demonstrates certainty, not volatility.
5. Reliable sources are claiming definitively that the election was fraudulent: Here’s What to Know About Venezuela’s Flawed Election - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Evidence of fraud:

1. Major left wing governments have opted not to recognize the fabricated "results". This includes the presidents of Chile and of Brazil. This shows that even ideological allies are willing to stand up for democracy over ideology, a telling sign that something is amiss.
2. Venezuela disinvited EU election observers, deported some observers, and prevented other observers from flying in (from the WIkipedia article). This lack of transparency is, once again, specifically designed to prevent detection of fraud, and serves not a single other purpose.
3. Many people were prevented from entering polling centers to witness the vote count (Venezuela election, as it happened: Maduro declared winner, González claims victory | AP News)
4. Venezuela claimed, without any specificity or evidence, that the CNE suffered a "hack", which led to a slow release of the fabricated "results". In democracies, results are released as they come in, complete with detailed precinct/voting station information, not vague tallies with no detailed information.
5. The CNE has refused to put in the effort to fabricate detailed voting information, as it would be easy to prove fraudulent with opposition-held receipts. There is no valid reason that could ever be put forth that would warrant the omission of detailed vote tallies. The only reasonable answer is that such tallies conflict with the fabricated "results".
6. The CNE couldn't be bothered to fabricate the vote percentage of the 8 minor candidates, simply saying they had 4.6% combined. If they truly had 80% of the voting centers tallied, they'd have precise numbers on the minor candidates.
7. In a past election, Smartmatic, the electronic voting machine provider, which could see the real vote tally, publicly claimed that Venezuela fabricated the result (Venezuela Reported False Election Turnout, Voting Company Says - The New York Times (nytimes.com)). This shows that Venezuela has already stolen an election in the past, and is capable and willing to do it again.

There's more evidence of fraudulent behavior, including violent attacks on witnesses, removal of ballot boxes at certain voting centers, arbitrarily extending the closing time of some polling locations for no apparent reason, and other minor behavior. The details of these types of events were well-documented on social media, but that isn't reliable enough to cite here and is also minor compared to the points I mentioned above. Peter Njeim (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The CNE's results should be stated, but not in the info-box. Personally, I think this page should be locked. No idea why it hasn't been locked with all the misinformation on the page. PlayboiCartiLuvr (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open data should be published on the CNE website. The www.cne.gov.ve website seems to have been down for several weeks and www.cne.gob.ve too. There's a 20 July snapshot which has four image files of a scan of a declaration by the candidates to recognise the results of the election. These are not election results data. We could speculate about the responsibility, e.g. either DDOS against the site or technical incompetence, but without sources (including on notability) we can't say anything in the article. Without the data from an official source, nobody will be able to analyse the official data ... Boud (talk) 08:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While it would be nice to have official data, we can report already what RELIABLE sources are saying. Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary and tertiary sources.--ReyHahn (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ReyHahn: your first sentence is correct. Although your second sentence describes our standard principle, for OGD (open government data), in practice, the sentence is false as a general statement. As explained at WP:ROGD, the full spectrum of OGD from reliable to unreliable for SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 daily count data was (and still is) available on Wikipedia, with broad consensus for making an exception to the principle, as opposed to making arbitrary decisions about which national ministry was publishing reliable data and which was publishing unreliable data. Anyway, for the general case, the place for discussion is the WP:ROGD talk page (or edit the essay directly). For this particular case, we'll find out during the next few hours and days in practice what consensus emerges. There is also a significant qualitative difference between the COVID-19 pandemic and elections: there's no pressure from Wikipedians to publish detailed election data in analogy to daily infection counts. There is also sufficient mainstream media attention for having better availability of secondary and tertiary sources than for many other elections or OGD. Boud (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A user above (@Peter Njeim:) noted "precedent being set when Russia annexed the four Ukrainian oblasts, and someone put the referendum results in an infobox. After lots of discussion in the talk page, the consensus was that the infobox is purely and solely for truthful information." I would like to note that while this may be true for those articles, it doesn't seem to be the precedent for the rest of Wikipedia. Election articles with accusations of fraud, like the 1960 United States presidential election in Illinois (which would affect the 1960 United States presidential election as a whole) and the 1878 South Carolina gubernatorial election, have both numbers and a map within the infobox. Even outright rigged elections, like the 1927 Liberian general election and the March 1960 South Korean presidential election have the official count in the infobox. It seems to me that if there is a "precedent" for this, this article and those annexation articles are the ones that are out of step. For an actual precedent on this matter, a project-wide discussion should take place but for now this seems like a local consensus type of deal. Wowzers122 (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose doing something like the 2010 Ivorian presidential election, where the results of two counts were published in the infobox at once. I think we will have to build on the consequences, and if Maduro is somehow able to retain de facto power in the coming days, weeks or months, then we can highlight him and his results in bold. If Gonzalez becomes a president with real power over at least some part of Venezuela, then we can highlight him and his results in bold too. Obviously, the results with Maduro's victory look rigged, but I (after months of hesitation) personally advocate their fixation in the infobox, as was done in 99% of all elections with frankly rigged results. The fact that we do not write the official results (even rigged) of the organization that conducted the elections, I do not think is right. On the other hand, it is necessary to mention somewhere that the official election results were rigged according to the sources cited. This can be done either in the preamble of the article, or with efn notes, or by adding a parallel count, as we did in the Ivorian presidential election of 2010.  PLATEL  (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guyana does not belong on this election map. It's a separate sovereign country. Please remove it. 92.220.74.144 (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the maps entirely from the infobox; there will not be reliably sourced data for filling them in, and they will only lead to an ongoing dispute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: They should be there as Venezuela claims it as theirs. Disputed areas are shown in the Indian election maps, Pakistani elections maps, Russian election maps, Ukrainian election maps, Azerbaijani election maps, and Artsakhian election maps. Why should Venezuela be the exception to this? Wowzers122 (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the question is; no portion of Guyana voted in this election, and there will be no reliable/independent data for any part of Venezuela. The map is UNDUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this discussion was about the inclusion of the claimed areas of Guyana in the election map. If there's no data for Venezuela to even have an election map then I don't care if it's removed from the infobox. Wowzers122 (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El Mundo [3]: None of these polls were made public in Venezuela, not like the one by Hinterlaces despite being prohibited by law. This company, owned by an advisor to Maduro, declared its boss the winner without any credibility, but stirred up the hornet's nest before time. The opposition already knew that the revolution's plan is to declare victory, barring a major surprise, and this false poll, like all those published during the campaign, confirmed this.

Yahoo! News [4]: Portals such as Globovisión, El Universal and Notitarde, media outlets that usually replicate the official narrative, echoed the poll carried out at noon by the consulting firm Hinterlaces, which is close to the government.

France 24 [5]: Officialism runs its own polls, such as Hinterlaces, which give Maduro the win with 54.2%.

El Pitazo [6]: Óscar Schémel is the founder and president of Hinterlaces, [...]. His studies have always openly favored the government of Nicolás Maduro., [Schémel] has generated controversy for his predictions, which at one time favored Hugo Chávez and now Nicolás Maduro., Schémel has been accused of maintaining ties with the government and receiving funding to conduct his polls, in which high and erroneous estimates were made in favor of Chavismo on at least 10 occasions, according to the Poderopedia website.

According to El Pitazo and Spanish Wikipedia, Schémel, president of Hinterlaces, was elected member of the 2017 Constituent National Assembly of Venezuela, has received a National Journalism Award and leads a show broadcasted in Globovisión, which from what I understand seems to be uncontroversially considered as linked to the government.

EFE [7]: Despite these statements, the vast majority of pollsters -except for the officialist Hinterlaces- predict a wide victory for González Urrutia, the option of the Democratic Unitary Platform (PUD), the largest opposition coalition.

Vozpópuli [8]: [...] the Hinterlaces company has published an exit poll that favors Maduro with 54.57% of the votes. A statistic that should be taken with a grain of salt, since Óscar Schemel, president of the polling firm, is a well-known advisor to Chavismo.

There seems to be a pretty solid consensus among reliable sources that Hinterlaces is partisan and favorable to the Venezuelan government. Schémel's background does not help in thinking the opposite. I don't think Hinterlaces should be included at the charts of polls in this article, though it should surely be mentioned somewhere in the article. Super Ψ Dro 11:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also interesting to see what websites are being used to cite Hinterlaces polls. One of them is Últimas Noticias [9] which has this to say about the opposition: Maduro thus leads the voting intention with 55.6 percent, followed by the candidate of the extremist right - whose members have lobbied to ask for sanctions against the Venezuelan people - Edmundo González with 22.1 percent; a clear advantage of more than 34 points for the current head of state. The exact same paragraph is also given by the also cited Prensa El Guayanés [10]. In the rest of cases it is Facebook or hinterlaces.net that are cited.

By the way, at hinterlaces.net you can see the following headlines: "Emmanuel Todd: "We are witnessing the final fall of the West"", "Why does Maduro win?" (written by Schémel himself), "Machado's hidden strategy" (again by Schémel) and a lot of articles about the Guayana Esequiba, that more than half of Guyana's territory that Maduro organized an annexation referendum for. Super Ψ Dro 11:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, removing the only pollster that managed to predict the actual election result (in addition to several other pollsters which have already been removed from this article), is in bad taste and would do a disservice to the readers of this article Baboogie (talk) 11:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably most of the polling agencies have connections to non-neutral groups with interests either for or against Maduro. At the moment, we have plenty of warnings about Hinterlace being suspected of being unreliable with the template {{Unreliable source?}}, so I don't think removing its data from the charts would (yet?) be justified. Moreover, what would be more convincing than the news agencies' analyses would be reports by statisticians, e.g. by FiveThirtyEight, regarding which of the listed polling organisations they consider to at least publish a statistically valid method and have credibility for actually applying that method. Do we have en.Wikipedia articles for any of the seven polling organisations listed at 2024 Venezuelan presidential election#Credibility of polling firms? If they're not yet WP-notable, then it's difficult to assess their reliability, since that has to be done on a talk page or over at WP:RS/N and it can be more difficult to find old conversations and rough consensus summaries. Boud (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not difficult to assess reliability on websites or twitter (X) accounts that came into existence mere months before the election, according to reliable sources. Unlike the others, Hinterlaces has been around as a pro-Maduro pollster for a longer time. And the Efecto Cocuyu sources discuss the statistical and methodological shortcomings; you can get a glimpse from google translate if you don't speak Spanish.

I support removal of Hinterlaces along with the new and clearly dubious "pollsters". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Baboogie: The election results have not been published yet, despite mainstream media using the words "results". Only a very minimal announcement has been made. Since the late 2000s, most middle-to-rich income countries' election authorities have published full tables of the detailed election counts on their websites. The CNE's website is currently not running. In a substantive sense, the results have not been published, which is why Latin American (and other) authorities are pressuring the CNE to release the full detailed results. Regarding removing the only pollster that managed to predict the actual election result, even if the current "numbers out of nowhere" are treated as "the result", if an unreliable source happens to match that official result, that doesn't make it reliable. Wrong methods and low-quality data can give right results by chance. Boud (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason not to include ORC Consultores in the credibility table? I've added it, but my understanding of the Spanish might lack some nuances. Boud (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plus I added others. Again to encourage article creation, they are Hercon Consultores, Meganálisis, Hinterlaces, Mass Behavior Research (ref: USAID partner but not prime or sub-partner). Boud (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And Medianálisis itself = Medianálisis (Q59330943). Boud (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C-Informa is apparently a "fact-checking coalition" of "media and digital rights organizations in Venezuela created in November 2022". Boud (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best I can determine, ORC Consultores is a long-standing credible pollster. The BBC cites them,[11][12] [13] they are not one of the group of newly created "pollsters", and Efecto Cocuyo didn't seem to turn up the problems typical of the new pollsters (sample). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding the blue link to Efecto Cocuyo. That on its own doesn't make Efecto Cocuyo reliable, but our article has been around since 2015 with apparently little editing controversy, and the unique content on its talk page takes us to Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources, which looks like a very good place to benefit from discussions and their summaries. Boud (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There has been considerable controversy about VENRS in the past, so proceed with caution. I think it has it about right, but it's only a WikiProject page. As far as I know, no one has challenged Efecto Cocuyo's reliability, and their FactCheck pages explain the basics of statistical reliability in polling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that WP:VENRS is only a WikiProject page, and I see that there were two RfCs, both withdrawn, and a WP:RS/N, discussion, also withdrawn, and I see that there was a recently closed (25 May 2024) arbitration case. About 60-70% of the edits/text are by the two people listed in the arbitration case. So I empathise with your concerns.

All the same, it makes sense to have the discussions about the sources in a centralised place, and attracting attention to it right now that Venezuela is in the media spotlight might attract enough previously uninvolved editors to clean up WP:VENRS for whatever major problems remain. I also see several comments in the longer RfC that WP:OWN problems can best be countered by people editing the problems, and working through individual blocking points on the talk page there. On the other hand, I'm not volunteering to be active on this topic, so it wouldn't be justified for me to override your judgment here regarding the use of a banner at the top of this talk page (you are listed as having four edits at WP:VENRS). So I'll just put a comment here, taking the liberty of bold font to attract the attention of people who just browse rapidly.

To anyone interested in improving the list/analysis of Venezuela-related sources, please look through WP:VENRS and feel free to make improvements and discuss problems on the talk page there. Keep in mind the past concerns, as mentioned in this particular discussion; a lot of work might be needed to improve the quality there. Boud (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable, Boud ... I just wanted to make sure you were aware that there were issues and accusations ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, that "controversy" is because one user thought that VENRS was claiming to be policy, rather than a project page (most active projects maintain some sort of internal advice on sources), and because the same user thought it was wrong that only active WP:VEN users had discussed the sources (again, as a project page, that's pretty normal). I think it's ultimately benefitted - already - from getting the extra attention, but it's not like the recommendations at VENRS are controversial, only its overuse. Of course, remembering that it's advice from a project is where to start. Kingsif (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of that; thx Kingsif. Still an <ouch> there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is an ouch, it's hard enough to keep up with what sources may have been usurped before worrying about the things being reported. I'm stalking this article as ever, but it's mostly been kept very tightly focused so far so... Kingsif (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It will stay that way as long as we have English-language, high-quality sources doing the bulk of the reporting. Once they lose interest, we're back to Spanish-language sources, but missing the editor who kept up with those the best. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boud I am having serious but intermittent connectivity issues, so am putting this here per your edit summary as a reminder to check the numbers when my connection improves. Unless someone else does first. Meanwhile, I'm chasing my tail on edits :(. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boud I think this looks right (but I didn't spend a ton of time on it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: In my edits of the After the official confirmation of candidates table today, mostly, except for one exception where I happened to notice an anomaly, I've aimed to tighten up the quality of the citations, with tags of work needing to be done to find proper sources, without checking the values in the source against the values in the table. Reasons include: without a source, I couldn't check anyway; there's not much point checking {{better source}} cases; and I'm happy to let someone else do the work for the cases where e.g. I added an archive. So please don't think that my edits imply that I checked the data against the sources.

For people who don't like red links, Venezuela is still going to have elections over the next 5, 10, or 50 years or more, so if any of these polling organisations are notable, it would be good to have Wikipedia articles on them. If they're not notable, then that's something the reader can take into account in judging the reliability of the data. Notability does not imply reliability, but non-notability means that not much is known about the organisation. The risk of a conspiracy of front organizations or disinformation increases when not much is known about them. Boud (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RED is a good thing :) :)

Generally, I agree that the page has too many tables filled with useless junk, and I'd be happy to see a lot of them go. The main polls don't fall in to that group, but the rest is not going to be meaningful ten years from now (WP:NOTNEWS).

Thanks for doing this work! (I'm disinclined to check numbers that aren't likely to matter anyway.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can safely leave the exit poll by Lewis & Thompson Analytics Data out of the table, per Infobae's analysis of it as disinformation, though it might be useful if someone wants to start a #Disinformation section. Could be a Pandora's box, since disinformation is probably not a government monopoly. Boud (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.mp.gob.ve/index.php/2024/07/29/fiscal-general-tarek-william-saab-informo-que-se-inicio-investigacion-por-ataque-al-cne/

Reminds of 2019 Venezuelan blackouts ... the usual next step is to to throw someone in jail and blame them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So at least the official story is an attack on the servers. Boud (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appears so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boud who called that one right, huh ? https://dolartoday.com/fiscal-saab-abre-investigacion-a-maria-corina-machado-por-supuesto-ataque-informatico-desde-macedonia-del-norte/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but think of the 1988 Mexican presidential election and its infamous "se cayó el sistema" moment. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The map shows New Zealand recognizes the election but does not provide any sources, I can't find any either so I assume its just a mistake Nerdyorc wiki (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The map includes entities that have not yet recognized the result of the election, such as Bahrain, New Zealand, and the Chinese Taipei authorities.

The map's creator seems to have mislabeled Qatar as Bahrain. New Zealand and the Chinese Taipei authorities have made no statement in regards to recognizing this election.

Additionally, Serbia has not been colored as recognizing the election, even though Vucic has congratulated Maduro with his victory. Mysteriousgadfly (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The usual solution to all of these problems is to send all of this non-notable mess off to a sub-page, just like we had to do at Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis. This problem occurs and recurs because people always turn these kinds of sections in to an UNDUE list. Send the list to its own page, move the map there too, and let's have these discussions on another talk page, so this page can focus on the DUE WEIGHT content that matters. (Which sources summarize to the most notable, rather than listing every Tom, Dick and Harry.) I was hoping the days of these endless lists and maps had ended with the last similar go-round. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]