Talk:2009 Venezuelan constitutional referendum

Not history

These are just a couple of lopsided opinion articles speculating on a possible future outcome of the referendum, I don't think they add much value to the article:

According to the Chicago Tribune, with the price of Venezuelan oil down from $126 in July 2008 to $40; corruption, crime and poverty up; and "personal and economic freedoms ... eroded"; Venezuelans are "thinking twice about a long-term relationship with Chavez". According to the Los Angeles Times, the impact of a global recession "could force Chavez to cut back on many of his welfare and foreign aid projects, which would reduce his popularity"; Chávez may be holding the referendum before the impact of the recession is felt.

JRSP (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, these are not opinion or editorial pieces; they are hard reporting, cited to reliable sources, and accorded due weight; I don't see any policy based reason for this deletion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Tribune is clearly labelled opinion (and it's not like you'd find a sentence like this in a "hard reporting" piece: "Just the guy you want to be president for life.")[2] LA Times source, on the other hand, is not an opinion piece. But you've selectively quoted speculative opinion from unnamed "analysts", backed up by more speculation from the author: "Analysts theorize that Chavez is holding the referendum next month before the full impact of the global recession hits Venezuela. Such a recession could force Chavez to cut back on many of his welfare and foreign aid projects, which would reduce his popularity." You can see how weak it is - it's the last para of the story, tacked on to a news piece about the recent trouble. [3] Deleted. Again. Rd232 ^talk 15:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand at all what those that article have to do with this constitutional reform. The 2007 referendum was rejected because of the heavy abstention from the government supporters, it was somewhat similar to what happened with the legislative election in 2005 when all the opposition parties decided to withdraw except for this time was the other way around, not because of the student "protests", which are only supported by the upper middle class citizens of Caracas. Chavez PROPOSED the amendment of five articles of the constitution and this move was approved by 6.668 million people all over the country and by the members of the National Assembly (also elected through popular vote). Now Chicago Tribune claims that corruption, crime and poverty in Venezuela have gone up? while according to the United Nations those figures have gone down. Where does the Chicago Tribune get their sources from? Yes its true that the global financial crisis has forced Chavez to cut down some of his foreign aid projects but we haven't feel the impact of the world recession here; a small example is that the Caracas Metro was expanded this year
. Off course the United States media will always criticize Chavez just because he is a socialist. I am sorry but I am going to remove the "history" section of the article because the United States media newspapers article cannot be a reliable source concerning Venezuela because the neutrality is disputed. Thanks. Tony0106 (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I support Tony's stance on this point. The US press has no relevance to the lives of Venezualans except maybe to influence the policy of a country that has relations with their government. Therefore they have no right in an article on this subject unless they are reporting facts and citeable events. If anything what Tony states about the Chicago Tribunes attack on Chavez's policies belongs in an article on propaganda targetting Venezuala, something that wikipedia helps to combat rather then excacerbates(sp?).--122.107.164.172 (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Original research and self-published source

This addition has several problems:

The initial reaction of the Venezuelan opposition to the referendum proposal was that it was unconstitutional for two reasons. First, opposition declared the change to the constitution illegal because it had been considered and rejected before, in 2007. Article 345 of the Venezuelan constitution states that "A revised constitutional reform initiative may not be submitted during the same constitutional term of office [to] the National Assembly." Chávez avoided this issue by declaring that the change to the constitution would be in the form of an amendment, instead of a constitutional reform. In addition, the constitutional amendment was re-defined to apply to all elected officials, not just to the president. However, the constitution states that "The purpose of constitutional reform is to effect a partial revision of this Constitution and replacement of one or more of the provisions hereof, without modifying the fundamental principles and structure of the text of the Constitution." The opposition argues that the change in term limits for elected officials is a major change to the constitution and cannot be effected by a reform, let alone an amendment, which is intended for smaller changes to the constitution, and that a constituent assembly to re-write the constitution is required for such a change. However, the Venezuelan Constitutional Court ruled that such a change was within the scope of a constitutional amendment, and that such an amendment could be re-attempted each year. Second, article 64 of the Venezuelan constitution states that, "All Venezuelans who have reached the age of 18 and are not subject to political disablement or civil interdiction are qualified to vote." The February 15th date is too soon to comply with the constitution and the suffrage law and complete 75-day process to create an election registry that includes those Venezuelans who turned 18 after September 24, 2008, the last time the electoral registry closed.

This paragraph relies too much on a self published source (daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com). References to the Venezuelan Constitution, although sourced to analitica.com actually contain comments from the blog on whether the right preposition is "of" or "to" which does not appear in the analitica.com document. Later, there is an interpretative analysis of article 64, this is original research as the last sentence ("The February 15th date is too soon...") is presented as a statement of fact and not as an opinion of the editors of Veneconomy as the laht source does. JRSP (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up these issues. I'm going to try to address them here in order before I modify the text and/or remove the flags.

1. (Citation 11) The to/of issue: The text reads, "Se declarará aprobada la reforma constitucional si el número de votos afirmativos es superior al número de votos negativos. La iniciativa de reforma constitucional que no sea aprobada, no podrá presentarse de nuevo en un mismo período constitucional a la Asamblea Nacional.", and "a" is "to", not "of". I'll remove the interpretation part of the footnote, but not the fact.
2. (Citation 12) I'm citing the Venezuelan constitution in a direct quote, this can't be original research, except for the "to" issue, which I verified with the constitution.
3. (Citation 13) Again, citing the constitution, don't see how it is OR.
4. (Citation 14) I've mostly stuck to writing about science. I use blogs only as a record of opinions, not as fact. As such, I qualified the beginning of the sentence with "the opposition argues". The next sentence shows that the government decided that it was legal, showing that the law ruled against the opposition after I stated their opinion.
5. (Citation 15) Again, citing the constitution; how is this OR?
6. (Citation 16) It's taking me a while to chew through the whole suffrage law, so I'm re-wording this into a statement of opinion.

Awickert (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The constitution is a primary document. Picking quotes from a primary document is OR, WP editors are not to guess what the opposition arguments could be. It would be fine if a reliable secondary source quotes the constitution but WP editors chosing what to quote and what not to quote is OR. Please check WP:PSTS, it is better to use secondary reliable sources, if the secondary source reports that the opposition is basing their arguments on certain articles of the constitution, then you *may* quote them. The blog can only be used to source the opinion of its author, he obviously opposes Chávez but there is not reason to believe that his opinion is representative of the Venezuelan opposition or even of a significant portion of it; please check WP:SELFPUB for the policy on using blogs as sources. Point 6 is easy to fix, just attribute the opinion to the editors of Veneconomy as the secondary source does. And don't "chew through the whole suffrage law", we are not here to interpret legal texts as this is OR; use secondary sources instead. JRSP (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

OK - that makes sense - working. Awickert (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The last sentence looks much better now. Now take a look at the previous one, that is, quoting article 64. The problem with it is that the secondary source does not explicitly mention it. This makes your prose looks as if you were presenting arguments for the opposition, instead of just reporting what their arguments are, as told by secondary RS. The problem with this approach is that sooner or later it will appear some editor arguing that article 341 says "Electoral Power shall submit the amendments to a referendum within 30 days of formally receiving the same." and we'll end up chatting on how the Venezuelan constitution should be interpreted. JRSP (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep - I was in the middle of fixing that and other things, but I just edit-conflicted with you. And sorry about the typo that you fixed - I was working too fast and thinking too much in English. Awickert (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

OK - made more changes and fixes. The blog link is still there for now, but more qualified, and I have the Venezuelan embassy's statement as a counterpoint (the statement looked like it was responding to concerns, so I think somewhere I should be able to find an opposition statement of the concerns). Awickert (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's all from me. Thanks for your wiki-linking, proofreading, and help during my first foray into political articles on Wikipedia. Awickert (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now we have a better sourced paragraph. I'm still concerned with quoting the constitution inline, it sounds as if the paragraph were supporting what the opposition spokespeople say. I suggest removing the inline refs to the primary sources and putting external links at the end of the article to both Spanish version and English translation, without taking a stance on whether the proposition is "of" or "to" or supporting any interpretation of any article. JRSP (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked at it again, and as far as I can see, the inline quoting of the constitution is now limited to what the news articles said that the spokespeople from AD and PJ said. I could take out the inline citations and put external links at the end; though I don't see how that would make a difference, you seem to know these articles better than I do. I could put "of/to" because it really seems unclear to me, and if anything leaning towards "to" because that was in the original Spanish, but I could put "of" because that was in the news article I am citing, or put "of" with a footnote about "to"... so many permutations. Awickert (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suppossed to know these articles better than anybody. The point is that we must be careful when using primary sources, in particular, not trying to interpret them. Things like whose "constitutional period" the Constitution is talking about or if this is a reform or an amendment must always be attributed to notable actors like spokespeople from either side or the Supreme Tribunal. For instance, when we say that Henry Ramos called the proposal "illegal and anticonstitutional" because Art 345 says so-and-so we must present this as something that he said and we have to follow the secondary source, that is HR said the proposal was 'illegal and unconstitutional" because Article 345 says that "A revised constitutional reform initiative may not be submitted during the same constitutional term of office of the National Assembly."' [secondary source]. I think that inline quotation of the primary source sounds as if we were inviting users to check whether he is right or wrong. JRSP (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, then: removing footnotes and placing external links at the end of the article. Awickert (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Dubious neutrality

This article is of dubious neutrality due to the enormity of the section entitled "opposition," and lack of information on the amendment's supporters. --N-k, 15:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.206.153 (talk)

In addition, what was the justification for removing the part about international observers deeming the election "free and fair"? This had a citation and was relevant information. --N-k, 15:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's POV pushing. Think about it: do we need to say the US presidential election was free and fair? No, because we work (or should work) on a presumption of innocence. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

specious argument IMO. In any case, given opposition claims cited, it is significant that the BBC cites foreign observers saying this. Rd232 ^talk 20:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

may lord and savior bbc save us all. --AaThinker (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Would agree that there are concerns about neutrality. A lot on opposition and nothing about people for the decision. If he got greater than 50% of the vote than he must have had a lot of people for the decision. It seems like it is mostly the US against the choices of the people of Venezuela.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree with your second sentence, seeing as the vote was 45-54, with massive pro-Sí government spending and coercion of government workers to campaign and/or vote for the Sí, and because I know folks in the US on both sides of the aisle. However, I do think it would be good to see both sides, and include an analysis of why the Sí won and why the polls swung from No to Sí so quickly. I've read about some of the people who have benefited from the government's programs who voted for the Sí, and heard speculation about the fact that the referendum became for all offices caused the swing. Awickert (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the polls swung. I can see in w:es:Referéndum constitucional de Venezuela de 2009#Encuestas that two companies reported Sí winning since December with little variation in January and February and showing numbers consistent with the final results. The only strange swing I see are in the polls from Datanálisis. JRSP (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, generally, it seems that chavista pollsters stayed Sí, and the oppo pollsters stayed No, but Datanálisis swung, and I believe that they have been the most successful in their predictions over the past several votes. Also, the hardcore oppo Hinterlaces showed the gap narrowing. However, many that showed a Sí win from the outset didn't change. Awickert (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know of chavista or opp pollsters. I see no swing in a couple of pollsters whose results were consistent with the final result and I'm not sure if datanalisis has been "the most" successful in predictions. Instituto Venezolano de Análisis de Datos (IVAD) is very reliable, (see for instance Venezuelan_presidential_election,_2006#Polls) and there is no swing in their polls. JRSP (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

OK - well, we don't agree about the polls then, but it would be good to have a section on why people voted Sí. Awickert (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This would be interesting but right now all the sources only report biased opinions (favoring either side) so I don't think this would be easy to implement in the short term; we'd need to wait some time for more cool-headed analyses. But at present time I only find opposition blaming Chávez of using State resources to favor the Sí option and Chávez-aligned sources saying that the opposition sticked to a "no es no" slogan while never debating in depth why "no". Even some apparently autocritical statements from the opposition like a recent statement from Henry Ramos[4] are IMO more internal fights among opposition parties than objective analysis. JRSP (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. If I see something come up, I'll bring it up here. Awickert (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

is there a list or reference for ....

i am very curious if i can find an updated list of nations partys and presidents amending constitutions to terms. The reason for that is that uribe, the next door neighbour also changed the constitution but it is indeed never heard of. I got very curious to who else does such with permission of the "international community". i wonder about mean dictators like in madagaskar and ethiopia if they do that with pentagon permission eg.24.132.170.97 (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Was it 2k? or 2k1? when Chavez first implemented the 2 term limit?

Was it like 2000 or 2001? when Hugo Chavez had first implemented the 2 term limit into law in the first place???? I can't remember when he implemented the term limits into the law. I believe it was before 9/11 but I can't remember if it was 2000 or 2001 when he implemented the law of having term limits into the Constitution. CaribDigita (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

??? According to this article and the Constitution of Venezuela the term limits were part of the 1999 Constitution which according to the second article has significant backing from a wide range of sectors and drafted by an assembly not Chávez and was a completely new constitution and fairly broad changes outside of the term limits Nil Einne (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• See Hugo Chávez He "Assumed office February 2, 1999". If the Constitution was from mid-1999 that would have fallen under his leadership. I thought I remember him passing the term limits in the first place. Unfortunantly when I try to Google "Chavez" and like "implement term limits" or something like that all I'm getting is the most recent news which is him repealing (my words) them.

I did find one article...

• Chavez Successful In Bid To Eliminate Term Limits It says he implemented those term limits in 1999. "Chavez took office in 1999 and won support for a new constitution the same year that allowed the president to serve two six-year terms, barring him from the 2012 elections. Sunday's vote was his second attempt to change that; voters rejected a broader referendum in December 2007."

CaribDigita (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)