Talk:2004 Venezuelan recall referendum

Unprecedented
User:Hajor wrote Boud, I think the "US/Can local executives" proviso is unnecessary: Head of State it says, Head of State it means.

The struggle for power between states and States is continuous. The economy of California is bigger than that of many States in the world; while more than 50% of laws of States like France and Germany are imposed by the EU, so it's not really clear that France and Germany (let alone smaller States in the EU) are still sovereign States. But i agree that this makes the statement a bit heavy, probably something lighter is possible... Boud 00:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Head of State is pretty unequivocal in this context. It's also a remark of major historical import -- "first one of its kind ever". Best to let it stand alone, without qualification: if someone is curious about other (non-national) recalls that have taken place, they can go and check the recall election article. Also, re States and states: Venezuela is itself federal, of course, so the natural parallel should be with the USA or Canada (or with the EU, at some point in the future), not with their constituent states . Still, if you want try something lighter, go ahead; I'd just be wary of diluting the importance of the comment by splitting explanatory hairs. Cool? –Hajor 02:12, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The present version looks OK to me - i think the in any nation bit was what got me most bothered before - since nation does not always correspond to State. But i agree that the present version is clear - head of state already is a rather formal expression, plus you've capitalised it, plus it's a link to a wikipedia page. Cool. :) Long live the Wikirepublic! ;) Boud 11:53, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Signature gathering, fraud?
Why doesn't the article mention the massive fraud that the opposition had to undertake to get the required signatures to force a recall vote? Over a million of the signatures were ineligible. Eric B. and Rakim 18:59, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Because noone had bothered to wite about it. This is the wikipedia. Boud 21:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * And you have done a very good job of fixing that, thank you! I am quite impressed at how this article has progressed in very short time, some cleaning up will be needed, but nevertheless --Dittaeva 21:46, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The petition

 * In November 2003, the opposition collected a new set of signatures, with 3.6 million names produced in four days. In February 2004, Roberto Abdul, one of the directors of Súmate the USA-backed NGO that collected the signatures, word missing that at least 265,000 of the signatures were invalid. missing junction here? According to their own calculations. missing junction here? The majority of the CNE rejected the petition, saying that only 1.9 million were valid; 1.1 million doubtful and 460,000 completely invalid. The invalid signatures contained persons that had died many years earlier, infants and persons that weren't even Venezuelan citizens. Of the signatures categorized as doubtful, 876,017 all had the personal details written in the same handwriting except for the signature itself.

There are several problems here.
 * 1) Did Abdul find or state this?
 * 2) Which sentence does According to their own calculations match up with? The sentence before or the sentence after?
 * 3) 876,017 all had the personal details written in the same handwriting except for the signature itself
 * 4) It's hard to believe that a single person wrote 876,017 signatures - i think what is meant is that on 876,017 petition forms, the signature is in different hand-writing to that of the personal details.

Boud 21:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is all according to an article I've read. And it is all on paper and without proper references so please don't sue me. I tried to write the info as stated in that article without plagiarizing to much and English is not my language:


 * 1) Abdul did acknowledge that atleast 265,000 signatures were invalid. I guess, in response to growing suspicion that a large number of signatures were fake.
 * 2) The sentence before.
 * 3) I try to translate: "Of the dubious 876,017 was written on lists were the personal details (except the signature itself) was filled in with one and same handwriting".

Another sentence is wrong in that section "Reaction to this decision resulted in nationwide riots that led to nine dead, 339 arrested, and 1,200 injured." It suggests a popular uproar that met with massive police brutality. I dont think that was the case. Eric B. and Rakim 01:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Numbers
From the article: And that's after 95% had been counted. So: 5 + 3.5 = 8.5 million. Plus the 5% not yet counted: total votes cast = 9 m. Out of a total electorate of 14.25 m. (9 / 14.25)*100 gives me a turnout of 63%. So, why's everyone talking about a "massive turnout"? And which third of the population couldn't be bothered to vote? –Hajor 22:10, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * No 4,991,483 = 58%
 * Yes 3,576,557 = 42%


 * For comparison, turnout in the California recall was at 61.2% and has been referred to as "unusually high" and "heavy" (e.g. ). Turnout at the 2000 US presidential election was only 51% and turnout for referanda is typically lower than for elections.--Eloquence* 22:21, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * But what I have seen claimed is 80%, either here or elsewhere. --Dittaeva 22:30, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Glad someone noticed - i didn't. Either (1) the 80% is accurate and the CNE has ignored about 17% of the total registered voting population, i.e. about an additional 27% of the total number (8.5 million) who have been counted so far; or (2) the turnout was 63% and not 80%. IMHO (2) seems the most likely. Boud 00:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Chávez's two presidential elections had turnouts "in the 60s", if I recall -- don't know, Carter's wide-eyed exclamations, all the talk in the previous months of "national polarization", and the election-day press reports I read led me to expect a much higher number. I haven't seen any actual percentages quoted anywhere, which is why I got my calculator out and did the sums. Presumably the very long queues of voters were more the result of technical glitches (with the thumbprint scanners, particulary) than higher-than-expected voter numbers. A 63% turnout also indicates, to me, a lower likelihood that fraud took place: not much margin for bumping up the figures with tricks like the voting dead there. –Hajor 23:23, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not really important, but i don't quite follow your argument about 63% turnout decreasing the fraud margin - it seems to me the opposite. If the real turnout is, say, 90%, and you add in 15% dead and other fake voters, because you only expected 60% turnout, then you risk getting 105% turnout and people getting suspicious. Even the least mathematically-minded readers might start suspecting that something's wrong. Secondly, the higher the turnout, the less influence a fixed number of faked voters will have. Boud 00:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The secret is not to go over 100%, of course (blackjack dealers and politicians understand this instinctively). What I meant was that 63% 'sounds' clean to me in a way that percentages in the high 90s never could. (I was thinking of a specific state in one specific LatAm election in the 1990s, but I can't find an online reference, so I shall leave it at that.) –Hajor 02:12, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In votingday polls opposition wins?
From norwegian newspaper Dagbladet:
 * "Grønsund, som har overvåket medienes opptreden under valgkampen, sier til NTB at valgdagsmålingene søndag gikk i opposisjonens favør med en fordeling av stemmene på 60-40 prosent"

Circa Translated


 * "Grønsund [surname of person], who has surveilled media conduct under the election campaign, tells NTB that the electionday polls [unsure of translation here, but it means unofficial polls on sunday just before the real recall poll] sunday favoured the opposition with a distribution of the votes of 60-40 percent"

It is thus stated the exact opposite of what I have understood from our article: That polls conducted just before the "official" election (more specifically on sunday in this case) favour the opposition by a goog margin. I could find anything on this in English, so I thought I'd mention it. Sorry about the sorry state of my english, have to sleep now --Dittaeva 22:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * There are polls and polls. IMHO a poll where there is at least the name of the organisation conducting the poll or at least a named, contactable individual (e.g. Robert Jensen who's a professor at the Univ of Texas at Austin - you can email him at - rjensen at uts.cc.utexas.edu - ) makes the poll somewhat more verifiable than just unofficial polls. Someone who's suspicious can search for more info on those organisations or individuals and chase up the info - but unofficial polls is impossible to check. i edited the text so that there are at least names of organisations and one individual, but anyone is welcome to improve on this. My general impression is that the opposition were unable to find any serious poll, based on proper demographic/statistical techniques, which favoured the Yes vote, so they avoided saying anything precise enough that it could be shown to be wrong. Boud 00:46, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * My guess of the translation is that it's either the Sunday one week earlier, or else it's based on exit polls, which AFAIK were not supposed to be taken, because they risked being published quickly while voting was continuing and thereby making the voting process much more unstable (too many positive and negative feedback loops).


 * What I meant with unofficial polls was not-the-recall-poll-itself. I am 100% positive that exit polls is what was meant, that is what "valgdagsmåling" means, directly translated "electiondaymeasurement". --Dittaeva 08:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I do off course agree that polls should be verifiable, it is sad how the mainstream press oversimplifies everything.


 * I should add IMHO anyway one needs to mention what kind of polls they were. THis is important, especially in a country like Venezuela. Chavez supporters tend to be poor who I suspect don't tend to have telephones and when they do, often work longer hours so are less likely to be home etc. As such telephones poles are likely to be biased in favour of Chavez opponents.60.234.141.76 20:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Empirical (but entirely unpublished) data from Venezuela shows that in a poll where the respondent is not anonymous to the pollster (e.g. by being questioned at ones door, or over the phone, or face to face in any other setting), in such a setting the respondent is much more likely to claim an intent to vote for Chávez, than in a poll where his replies are anonymized. This is due to fear of retaliation, of losing ones job, of not getting government service, and the like. This factor was found to be around 15% in the 2006 presidential election. Chances are the exit poll mentioned in Norway was more truthful by virtue of the respondents feeling "safe" with giving an accurate answer. As long as the safety situation in Venezuela remains the same I will not provide a source (people are afraid of the government). Dr Ulf Erlingsson (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

POV balancing
There is some stuff in this (right wing) that I think merit inclusion. Won't take the time myself right now. --Dittaeva 12:12, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Using Newsmax.com as a source won't be helpful. If Newsmax is used, it'll have to be balanced by a Communist, pro-Chavez rag like Cuba's Gramna. We should instead utilize the amble array of more credible sources available online, like academic journals, the BBC, AP, Reuters, etc. 172 12:17, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Sure, but assuming its not all lies, there are points (or events) in there that I think merit inclusion, it would off course be best if the source is not Newsmax. --Dittaeva 12:28, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point. If there are points or events in the article that merit inclusion then they should be available from other sources such as BBC, AP, Reuters etc. If they are not, then it is arguable if they do merit inclusion. If still think they do, then there must also be points in Communist, pro-Chavez rags as 172 says which merit inclusion but most Wikipedians don't feel this way.60.234.141.76 20:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Removal of baised sentence
The start of the article used to say:


 * Chávez resisted the recall vote using a combination of legal technicalities and – allegedly – threats and violence.

But I deleted this. There are at least two problems. The first is a clarity problem: "resisted the recall vote" doesn't have a clear meaning here. Does "resisted" apply to the word "recall" (i.e. he won, he wasn't recalled) or the word "vote" (i.e. he tried to prevent the vote from taking place)?

The second problem is that the "allegedly" doesn't mention who the allegers are. This implies that it's a cross-party belief, but it would be very strange for Chávez's supporters to make/believe these allegations.

(Other lesser problems include the meaninglessness of "legal technicalities", and that the first half of the sentence is stated as a fact rather than the belief/claim of a particular subsection of Venezuelan society.)

My best guess at the intended meaning is: "Chávez's opponents allege that he disputed the legal grounds for the vote, and tried to prevent it from taking place. Some even allege that he used threats and violence."

Although, given how normal such allegations are in Latin American politics, I really don't think this is worthy of a statement at the top of the article. Gronky 20:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Date
I have modified the sentence on the timing. If I understand it correctly, the date chosen would have been significant only if Chavez was recalled (which he was not). Although Chavez may have chosen the date for this reason, the fact is the date was in the end insignificant as far as I can tell. So unless there is evidence people changed their vote because of the potential outcome or the date was otherwise significant in who voted and how they voted IMHO it is important to make it abunduntly clear that the date as it turned out was not significant, even if it may have been chosen because it might have been significant. I feel my modification does this well but if you have a different suggestion change it or discuss it here. 60.234.141.76 20:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Counter-intuitive
The article says the referendum question was counter-intuitive. I would have to strongly disagree. The referendum was recall election. A recall election is about recalling someone, generally a leader, i.e. removing them from office. If you support recalling someone, you want to remove them from office. Obviously then if you vote yes, you want to remove them from office. This is not a motion of confidence/no confidence. If this was a motion of confidence then a yes vote should be expressing confidence and a no vote would be expressing no confidence. In both cases, you are to some extent asking the same thing but in different ways. But in both cases, the answer is not IMHO counter intuitive. Either you are saying yes I want to remove Chavez (or whoever from office or you are saying yes I support Chavez. Which ever question you ask, both are just as intuitive IMHO. At the very least then IMHO the discussion should say something like "to some this may seem counter-intuitive" 60.234.141.76 20:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Manual Votes?
From the article: "An interesting piece of information is that 10% of the votes were cast manually, as not all polling places could be automated. In those places where voting was manual Chavez won 70% to 30%, an even wider margin than when using the automated technology. This, of course, puts all claims of electronic voting fraud in a very difficult situation."

I really didn't think the summary was particularly appropriate or accurate. From Venezuelanalysis.com: Manual count of votes from rural and low income urban areas where Chavez has widespread support, and where automatic machines were not used, could increase the President's margin of victory. Hence the change. 129.72.143.42 07:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

False exit polls
The entreprise Penn, Schoen & Berland cited in the text is world wide recognized as a mercenary firm. They use to show false survey results in order to manipulate public opinion.

Their habitual program is as follows:

- They show results prior to the elections showing their candidate is wining positions, or is above the other candidate. These results use to be strange (because their are false), compared to results coming from any other firms, that usually coincide between them.

- The elections day, they publish false exit polls, showing their candidate has won the elections. The idea is to manipulate the public opinion in order that masses think about "fraud", when there is nothing about it.

- This idea, supported by mass media and, often, foreign interests, lead sometimes to a climate of violence that degenerates in rebellion of the losing minority.

Penn, Schoen & Berland have used this tactic in Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, and Venezuela.

It is easy to see that they always fail in their polls, and the reason is that the survey results they present are false.

Economist Article
I was unable to find The Economist article referenced in footnote one through proquest or lexisnexis, which makes me think that it doesn't exist, or is miscited. I also ran searches for the article title "Authenticated, but not quite agreed" but found nothing. Is this a real source?

If it's not, should we consider removing the content from the article?

24.213.197.102 20:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that last one was me, forgot to sign in. Found the text from the economist: "The president's supporters are making their own threats. When the opposition tried to hold a rally in a chavista stronghold in the west of Caracas, gunfire erupted, leaving one dead and a score injured. The government called it a "provocation" and spoke of restricting the right to demonstrate." (The EconomistJune 7 03, with the headline "Agreeing to disagree")

Is it worth mentioning the incident, which the current text does not?

Chris kupka 21:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that at a rally to support the referendum gunfire erupted killing one and wounding a dozen more seems to be a rather important piece of information. It demonstrates the hostility at least one side had towards the other as well as the lengths at which government supporters were willing to go to ensure the referendum failed. it could easily be and should be added to the day of the referendum section.

70.176.114.199 17:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree, and it also shows that the previously removed claim that Chávez was using violence and threats of violence to prevent the recall election should be reinstated for being factual and relevant. Dr Ulf Erlingsson (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Chavez referendum.jpg
Image:Chavez referendum.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fraud claims
Good evening editors, just a quick note to inform that I will be editing/deleting POV remarks, sources that do not comply with WP:RS such as indymedia or CEPR, and other stuff from the paragraph about fraud claims.Alekboyd (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh fun. I'm sure you'll be careful to explain all your edits, and claims such as CEPR not being a reliable source for its own views, which is all it's used for at present. Rd232 talk 02:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for the record (if this is going to be an issue), you think American Free Press is a reliable source. diff. (I'm not saying at this point whether I agree or not, just a point of information.) Rd232 talk 02:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CEPR is not a WP:RS compliant in this particular matter. Provide others and you'll be fine.Alekboyd (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Please explain how CEPR is not a reliable source for its own reports. You know this is going to be disputed (and I've already questioned it) so you could at least bother trying to justify it. Rd232 talk 03:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I've just put my finger, I think, on what bothered me about the ISR paper you added: "Since each voter is assigned at random to a certificate of election (computerized or manual), it can be stated that each certificate of election is a random sample of the voting center population." This assumption of randomness underpins their entire analysis, and there are many ways in which it could fail. At voting center level they can't identify variation (too few certificates). So they place centers into clusters, and if more than a small amount of variation between these certificates exists, then their analysis identifies this variation as a reason to "reject" the cluster of voting centers. Rejected clusters are then ignored, with results projected from the rest. This would be OK if the initial assumption (randomness) is actually true. But it could easily not be; to pick a plausible actual reason, because No voters distrust the computers on average slightly more and demand a manual vote; or No voters might distrust computers less if they're in a local area run by the opposition. Or a zillion other reasons, who's to say? Unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with cluster analysis to say how a violation of that assumption interacts with the clustering process they use (badly I would think, it's a rare statistical analysis that can survive violation of a basic untested assumption); and nobody has cited or critiqued them, so I'd have to go off and learn more about cluster analysis, and then it would still be OR unless I got it published somewhere... Bah. Rd232 talk 04:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, alek, I take it you had permission to republish their work. Rd232 talk 04:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This paper isn't mentioned in the article: Delfino and Salas 2008 and it's a whole lot more persuasive than the ISR one. Rd232 talk 04:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good morning Rd232, if you have a problem with the peer-reviewed paper I cited, I suggest you raise the issue wit ISR, that is, of course, assuming that you have the necessary credentials to dispute its findings. As per CEPR, the acronym means Center for Economic and Policy Research. They are not an authoritative source on electronic voting. So please stop using it as a source in this particular respect.Alekboyd (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good morning alek. "Policy Research" covers anything, and, CEPR's work is clearly identified so readers can judge for themselves. Incidentally did you dismiss the Delfino and Salas paper without even looking at the link? I'd have expected a comment on it if you had, plus immediate addition to the article. (Plus splashes across every one of your blogs...) Rd232 talk 14:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems that we are disagreeing on your rather optimistic "policy research covers anything policy." Does CEPR, for instance, has any positions re the policies of the Chavez administration in failing to implement electoral recommendations made by the Carter Centre and the OAS, after 2004's recall? When you say CEPR work is clearly identified, do you mean as in economist Mark Weisbrot being Hugo Chavez's apologist par excellence in the USA? I will repeat, CEPR is not an authoritative source in electronic voting, unless, of course, you can demonstrate that their work in that field has passed some sort of peer reviewed process within established circles.


 * As per Delfino & Salas paper, I will refer you to studies done about the recall referendum, recall referendum, while stressing that, to date, every single one of them done by reputed analysts somewhat, erm, throws into question the results announced by Carrasquero and Rodriguez. So, do you really want to go down the route of citing academics? It ain't pretty...


 * One last thing, please back up your claims of percentages with CNE data instead of articles of Chavez's consul in San Francisco. That shouldn't be a problem for you. Where's the link to Hellinger's paper BTW?Alekboyd (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hellinger's paper isn't available online for free to the general public - you can google it, you'll find places you can pay for it if you want. Or find a library. As for CEPR, it just goes to show that you might learn something if you read the sources you disagree with - in this case, that the paper was very badly summarised (I've corrected it). (Ditto the VA ref, which supported only a small part of the para it was attached to when the phrasing implied it was the source for all of it.) As for your comments on the Delfino and Salas and ISR papers... I'm mystified. From the fact that you haven't added it to the article yet, I conclude you've completely confused yourself, even though given the link you've provided it's hard to see how. I'll remark that the fact that Delfino and Salas are academics unlike the ISR authors is probably why their paper is better than the ISR one. Rd232 talk 00:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Good morning Rd232. Hellinger's paper does not contain any remarks to the effect that the Carter Center appointed an independent panel that found no evidence of fraud. Perhaps you can point out to the specific page of the paper in which the remarks are purportedly made. Aside from that, how come you are using as reference a paper that's not publicly available? Isn't that a violation to WP:V? Regarding your insistence in citing CEPR, as if it were an authoritative and reliable source on electronic voting, and their use of Evans/McDonough, there's an obvious conflict of interest there. Ted Nordhaus, co-author of "Death of Environmentalism" and partner of lobbyist of Hugo Chavez Michael Shellenberger, was at the time VP of Evans/McDonough, was he not? How can their polling be taken seriously then? I suggest you provide references to truly independent pollsters. Re Febres-Cordero, Marquez, or Delfino and Salas, the fact that their work has been published in peer-reviewed publications means that their output has passed strict academic criteria. Now can you say the same about CEPR? Either paper proves that results announced by CNE are suspect, to put it lightly.
 * I misread the Carter panel sentence which I added the Hellinger ref to at one point (he mentions Carter OKing the result but not an independent panel). Since I'd realised my mistake and edited the article since and not re-added your removal of it, I'm not sure why you bothered to comment. Also Hellinger is publicly available online, just not for free; but even if it were only available on paper it would be a WP:RS. If you can link to WP:V maybe you can read it too. As to your comments about Evans/McDonough: ROTFLMAO. Even if this is the case (don't know) - you have no problem with the PBS survey using Sumate volunteers to actually carry out their survey, but some wink-wink connection to Chavez in a respected US polling company is beyond the pale. Be serious. Finally, you seem so wrapped up in your antagonistic attitude that you've completely failed to notice my praise for Delfino and Salas' paper, even as I criticised the other one. Finally your views of CEPR are irrelevant here, as they're just reporting public poll results, go find another source if it makes you feel better. Rd232 talk 19:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rd232, please visit WP:NPA. Please provide evidence that I have no problem with the PBS survey using Sumate volunteers to actually carry out their survey. And finally, unless, of course, you can provide evidence that you are an authoritative source on electronic voting and statistics, whatever you have to say about peer-reviewed papers is as relevant as the views of CEPR in that respect.
 * WP:NPA? OK, sorry if I hurt your feelings... somehow. Also apologies if in fact you do appreciate the fundamental flaw involved in using Sumate volunteers - but I've seen nothing from you to suggest you did and your comments on Evans imply you don't... And I'm well aware of WP:OR, though if you think it has any relevance whether I'm an authority or not, maybe you need to revisit it. I might be the world's foremost expert, but only what reliable sources say can be used, so if my idea hasn't been published (yet) it can't be cited in the article. So yes my remarks were WP:SOAPBOXing but having spent an hour reading the paper I needed to express my thoughts. Incidentally, the CEPR paper was economists using statistical analysis to criticise other economists doing statistical analysis. Got a problem with that? Rd232 talk 21:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 'but only what reliable sources say can be used...' At last we agree in something Rd232. CEPR is not a reliable source in this respect. Perhaps you can provide references to their criticism of the Hausmann and Rigobon paper cited by reliable sources, or, even better, perhaps references to both Hausmann and Rigobon and CEPR papers should be removed, and let the academics and statisticians who actually have passed some sort of peer-reviewed process do the talking. Aside from that, I have a problem with remarks such as "opposition linked polling firms" while patently clear links between Evans & McDonough and the regime are out in the open, yet not mentioned. Hellinger's paper bases its conclusions on a poll made by IMEDIOPSA, a pollster of dubious credentials and capacity. In any case, such claims ought to be supported with some kind of evidence from RS or be taken out.Alekboyd (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

All these opposition fraud claims made sense before December 2006 as a way to challenge Chávez legitimacy. However, Chávez legitimacy now rests in his victory in the December 2006 election, victory conceded by his main opponent so I don't understand what's the point of pushing the fraud hypothesis in the 2004 RR. JRSP (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there is no need to remove either the Hausmann/Rigobon or the CEPR papers. If you want to remove them on the basis that they're not reliable, please ask at WP:RSN and see what people say. Hellinger's conclusion isn't "based" on IMEDIOPSA, and in any case you'll need to provide WP:RS evidence that they're unreliable, not merely assert it. (A quick googling in response to your assertion wasn't very helpful, though it turned up another Hellinger paper where he did use IMEDIOPSA more extensively.) As for "opposition linked polling firms" - since this isn't describing any particular firms, and the claim is taken from Hellinger, I don't see a problem. Can use a direct quote if you prefer. Rd232 talk 15:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Good morning JRSP. The issue here is not Chavez's current legitimacy, but rather historical facts.Alekboyd (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Take it easy, then. From a historical perspective, the only thing to say is that there were claims from the opposition denied by the government, that the international observers found no evidence of fraud and eventually, that nobody cares about that after the 2006 election. Perhaps we should add that not all the opposition supported those claims, Teodoro Petkoff and Claudio Fermín said that Chávez won in 2004. It could be also interesting to find material connecting the fraud claims with the opposition withdrawal from the 2005 legislative elections that many analysts consider a major mistake. JRSP (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * JRSP, I don't think you have the power to decide what is or isn't relevant regarding our history. Re legislativas, search about Fila de Mariches, 23 de Noviembre, and an audit that was conducted in the presence of international observers. It's fascinating reading.Alekboyd (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What is it with you? "authority" this and "power" that? He was an expressing an opinion - something you're well familiar with. Rd232 talk 21:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've a made a bunch of changes to improve structure, fix refs, clarify/correct etc: diff. Three big things need doing: (a) move the media stuff to a different article, as it's not really about the RR (maybe the article on Venezuela media); (b) move the Tascon List somewhere else, most of it doesn't belong here (and it duplicates the section in Luis Tascon where it doesn't really belong either); unless we have a better idea, maybe move it to its own article; (c) incorporate the Delfino and Salas paper, which will fit neatly after the Carter Center audit-of-the-audit now that that's properly referenced. Comments? Rd232 talk 21:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Tascon List should have its own entry, given the impact it has had/will have and the level of attention it has generated. Agree on (c) and don't really have an opinion on (a).Alekboyd (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Changed the media section to a Polls section, since on closer examination it was basically WP:OR. Cleaned up the polls bit. Rd232 talk 15:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

New Fraud Studies
There was a special section in Statistical Science Vol. 26, Nr. 4, November 2011, about the Venezuelan recall referendum. I've mentioned it briefly in the article, but I think the whole article may need to be reviewed in the light of the new evidence that clearly demonstrates, using a wide array of tools, that the result was fraudulent. Dr Ulf Erlingsson (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added links to the individual papers. The summary paper (here) is obviously the most digestible, and has a note of caution the individual papers don't. It would be worth looking out for any responses (though given scientific publishing timescales, it might well take a couple of years). Rd232 talk 20:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040905004646/http://edition.cnn.com:80/2004/WORLD/americas/08/16/venezuela.recall.ap/index.html to http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/08/16/venezuela.recall.ap/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060330020217/http://www.wmd.org/democracyalerts/july1504.html to http://www.wmd.org/democracyalerts/july1504.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050313204850/http://newswire.indymedia.org:80/en/newswire/2004/08/808090.shtml to http://newswire.indymedia.org/en/newswire/2004/08/808090.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071117043011/http://caracas.usembassy.gov:80/wwwh2678.html to http://caracas.usembassy.gov/wwwh2678.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120717020928/http://www.eluniversal.com/2004/08/15/revo_ava_15A483829.shtml to http://www.eluniversal.com/2004/08/15/revo_ava_15A483829.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)