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
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
@
ApolloCarmb: This has gone to the extent from deleting quotes of representatives mentioned in the paragraph from deleting whole communiqués not mentioned anywhere in the article. There is no way this can be overquoting or undue weight, specially if the section is named "Irregularities" --
Jamez42 (
talk)
13:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)reply
@
ApolloCarmb: I repeat:
This does not seem a case of
WP:BLOWITUP. If the section is supposedly undue, the section should be complemented with government sources that contest the information, or at the very least tag it, not delete it completely. --
Jamez42 (
talk)
17:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)reply
@
ApolloCarmb: How can the issue be solved then? It's clear that there's information missing in the article without the declaration, hence the NPOV template, and there should be a way to improve the article instead of deleting the whole statement. --
Jamez42 (
talk)
14:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)reply
@
ApolloCarmb: All of the nine points denounced by the MUD should be included in the article for NPOV and further explaination of previous complaints.
[1] I don't mind that the format is different or that the points are rephrased, but the information shouldn't be deleted. In fact, if there are any official or progovernment sources that contest the claims, which I haven't found, I'd be glad to add them. I also think that the Controversies section should be split in Irregularities. Any thoughts? --
Jamez42 (
talk)
15:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)reply