Talk:2023 Venezuelan referendum

Ambiguous sentence: who was advocating?

I find this sentence in the "Background" section ambiguous:

"In 1895, Venezuela sought the support of the United States, which through the Monroe Doctrine, advocated for the country to intervene in the dispute."

To me, it reads as if the United States was advocating for the United States ("the country") to intervene. The next sentence refers to the US House of Representatives as passing a resolution for arbitration, on the pressure of President Cleveland. So is this sentence referring to internal pressures for the US to intervene? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: The original source was referring to Venezuela, instead of the US. Thanks for the notice. --NoonIcarus (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Pleased to be of help. Interesting article; enjoyed reading it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Turnout

The only source on the "extra official" information is Henrique Capriles, so this has been properly attributed. If we can find a better source, that would be great. WMrapids (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Henrique Capriles is not the only one saying that the turnout was lower, and several outlets have reported on this. Specifically, The Guardian wrote: An image purported to have been shared and later deleted by Venezuela’s electoral authority showed a table with about 2 million votes for each of the five questions, suggesting that they tallied the number of votes rather than voters to spin the public relations disaster.. It's safe to attribute as "extraofficially". --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: You are participating in synthesis and original research edits. Nowhere in the Guardian article does it say a turnout percentage. WMrapids (talk) 07:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: Wanted to let you know that the "10.2%" material has been removed since it can only be attributed to Henrique Capriles and not an independent source. I have genuinely tried to find a separate source for the number, but could not find one. Per WP:ONUS, burden is on you to include this number. We can include the number if there were a more independent source involved, but as of now we just have a claim by an opposition politician.--WMrapids (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @WMrapids: Both Capriles and The Guardian provide the figure with the same conclusion: the votes were tallied instead of the voters. That would be 10,554,320 votes divided by each question, five. It's the same estimate. --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, that's original research and is based on a supposed leak that has no verification. If there were an independent source providing the same numbers instead of a user doing math to provide them, then it would be more appropriate for inclusion. But I've looked and there's nothing yet. Give it time and there may be a source, but we don't have to rush in original research or unattributed claims. WMrapids (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@WMrapids: First, this figure was first shared by the Electoral Council, which would go on to delete the original result. Something similar already happened in the 2018 regional elections. I have already added another source in the section, NTN24, and changed the infobox accordingly. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@WMrapids: It still appears to be original research based on WP:CALC. There's not enough information presented to provide a detailed conclusion of 10.2% like Capriles does. WMrapids (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Duplicative results

It feels duplicative to have the results in both the infobox and a section on the page. Can we pick one or the other? RickyCourtney (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)