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
The lead should summarize the irregularities and concerns of previous elections as well as the government intervention in the opposition primaries.
ReyHahn (
talk)
15:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)reply
@
ReyHahn: Thank you very much for the lead expansion, I think that the current one summarizes the situation pretty well. Political parties interventions can be included once there is enough information in the article. --
NoonIcarus (
talk)
15:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Shouldn't the name of this article be "2024 Venezuelan presidential election"? First, unless elections are suspended, there's always going to be a "next election", and second, using the year is in line with naming conventions for articles about elections in other countries. I don't want to simply rename the page without consensus, and I'm not sure how to make the proposal for a name change, so anybody should feel free to do the latter if they agree with me.
Ira Leviton (
talk)
14:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Two ways to go with it. Change it to 2024 Venezuelan presidential election or wait a bit (Venezuelan elections are a mess). The former will need update if the date changes but it is not a problem. I am ok with both.--
ReyHahn (
talk)
20:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I have gone ahead and moved the article. It is very unlikely that said elections will take place this year, and the only way that elections don't take place next year is that they are postponed or suspended. At this point, I think it's better to reconsider a rename only if that happens, and keep the current title ("2024 Venezuelan presidential election"). --
NoonIcarus (
talk)
23:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The Polling data
After reading the poll source that the article says 60% refused to answer, I saw that it instead said that they were undecided/not commited to either the opposition or PSUV. The author of the source also indicates this in his writing in it. Is there any reason why it is labeled misleadingly in the article?
66.44.40.36 (
talk)
23:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)reply
@
ReyHahn:I found this article that mentions that National Assembly Speaker Jorge Rodríguez said that he was going to tbe the official candiate, but I would say further confirmation is needed. What seems to be clear is pro-government officials ruling out running as candidates. --
NoonIcarus (
talk)
21:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
ReyHahn: Roger that, I have removed the image accordingly. I have left the PSUV since they're still the ruling party, but leaving the candidate parameter as "to be announced". Let me know what you think. --
NoonIcarus (
talk)
02:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Recent candidates
Hi @
Hulk Pelo:, best wishes. Could you please confirm if the recent candidates added in the infobox have officially inscribed to the electoral process? (Antonio Ecarri Angola, Luis Eduardo Martinez and Daniel Ceballos). If so, said information could be updated in the article. Kind regards,
NoonIcarus (
talk)
10:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Regarding
this edit, what the lead currently needs it's an update. It's from around and before the opposition primaries, in November, and it currently should show the process of the inscription of candidates. That naturally means an update to the article, though. I'll see what I can help with later.
NoonIcarus (
talk)
11:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Running mates
There's a section in the article's main infobox that mentions "running mates" for candidates, which is blank for all candidates with the exception of Juan Carlos Alvarado being listed as Luis Eduardo Martínez' running mate. The figure of a running mate doesn't exist in Venezuelan elections since the Vice President is not an elected official—it's appointed by the President like ministers are.
190.103.58.14 (
talk)
17:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorsements section
Most of the
Endorsements section is primary sourced,
WP:UNDUE, and needs to be deleted; only those mentioned in secondary sources should be retained. Please review
WP:NOT -- not a directory, not a blog, not a webhost, not a publisher of original thought. The entire section is just not encyclopedic, and not what Wikipedia should be used for.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
02:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
If a politician or former politician, or a political party, states "vote for this candidate". That is an endorsement. The Spanish version of this page includes the political parties that have thrown their support behind a candidate. Most Wikipedia pages that cover elections use an endorsement page. There should be no need for a secondary source when the person states on their OWN social media page "Vote for this candidate", that's an endorsement. Yes, it is possible that some of them were not cited correctly, but the endorsement page is very significant, especially in this election in Venezuela. Let's not undo everything until we can find a solution. There is nothing "blog" or "web host" like of an endorsements page. That is exactly why Wikipedia gives the option to make an Endorsements box, to use it for endorsements.
If it makes more sense, let's clean up the endorsements section INSTEAD of deleting everything. Or if it is easier, let's make a specific page for "Endorsements of the campaigns 2024 Venezuela presidential election" or something similar. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ballers1919 (
talk •
contribs) 17:48, May 5, 2024 (UTC)
Please sign and correctly thread your talk page posts.
Undueoriginal research to this extent can't be cleaned up; there is narry a secondary source in the lot. Further, this is an important article this year, and the UNDUE primary-source content is overwhelming the article, which also has considerable cleanup needs (including
WP:PROSELINE, datedness, prose issues, and more bare URLs);
restoring UNDUE content (almost all tweets, not all of which are actually even endorsements) impedes progress that is needed.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
18:50, 5 May 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
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
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
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
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