Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 14

This archive page covers approximately mid-July to August 24, 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary.
See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Updated ToDo and POV lists

The talk page has reached 210KB, and some sections need to be archived. I'm consolidating items left on lists here, so that we can archive upper sections of the talk page.

For reference:

• Last December 10 (Featured article) version
• Last version of Saravask (editor who brought article to FA) 17 March
• Pre-revert version of June 10

To Do (left over from my list after the revert)

• The Presidential info box at the top of the article still isn't working right.
• Deal with voter tally boxes Template:ChavezElections2004, Template:ChavezElections2000, Template:ChavezElections1999, Template:ChavezElections1998
  • Vote tallies are entirely unsourced, except for one I added. Shouldn't there be a footnote reference as part of the box ? I can't find any indication of a reference for these numbers, and I've seen other numbers elsewhere. (Found and added reference to 2000 box. Added request for help on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela.) SG Found sources, done. Sandy 00:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Dec 10 and June 10 versions. This includes (at minimum):
  • Check for best use of pictures, including Fair Use and copyright issues
  • Update foreign policy section 2004 - present
  • Update current events, for example, no mention of Caracas - LaGuaira autopista, no mention of North Korea, Iran, Vietnam, Russia, arms, Israel
  • Update domestic, economy and statistics
    • Still need to address internal and external debt, inflation, devaluation, deterioration in health care, and failure to build enough housing, considering massive oil windfall Added to Criticism, needs to be incorporated here. Sandy 00:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Housing shortages are mentioned. And if you're going to add all of those negative points, don't forget to include supporters' arguments. Writing for the enemy is essential in this case. -- WGee 17:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Housing shortages are mentioned, but can be better quantified with the data that shows that, in spite of the oil windfall, Chavez hasn't kept pace with previous admininstrations, which had less money to work with. I can "write for the enemy", but where am I to find data to support that case: pull it out of thin air or make it up? Sandy 13:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
          • What about Venalysis? There have to be some sources out there (in Spanish, at least) that provide a favourable view of Chavez. -- WGee 15:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
            • What about Venalysis? Does hypocrisy know any bounds? 141.153.75.69 15:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
              • I've never once said that Venalysis is not biased. I've also never said that we should refrain from using Venalysis as a source to describe the supporters' POV. And rather than being a polemicist, why don't you do something more constructive, like tackle one of the ToDo lists? -- WGee 15:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
                • I'm a bit busy. My participation in this article will be inherently limited. 141.153.75.69 15:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
                  • I've appreciated whatever help you've been able to give. I'm busy too, and will probably just tag the article POV and give up, if we don't start making faster progress. No Don Quixote complex here, and I enjoy working in a consensual environment, but don't want to work in an environment of nitpicking words and reverting, when there is still so much major work to be done. Sandy 17:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
            • I guess it has to do with my bias towards hard data. I tend to look for concrete, quantitative data, rather than general and vague statements of support. And, then I apply a statistical and mathematical eye to the data (the unemployment chart is terribly misleading, for example, and doesn't explain the annual December dip at all). My question was, where am I to find the data? By that, I mean accurate, reliable, verifiable, and not distorted. Maybe you can pick one criticism, and show me what you can find, so I can follow suit? VenAnalysis is in English. Or, are you saying it's fine to just add vague statements like "supporters claim", which I tend to avoid? If that's what is wanted, I can find those in the more well-recognized English press, but IMO, without data, the bias still exists, and there is little data to support Chavez. Sandy 17:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
              • But I give you hard data INE is the official source on most poll statistics (unemployment, poverty, etc) BCV for economic indicators (debt, GDP etc) We can use unofficial sources as well but the previous are quite reliable. Housing numbers failures do come from that same government too you know, as for comparing it to previous administrations it is apples and oranges since the government claims Caldera built shacks instead of houses.Flanker 18:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Any oil price related or OPEC issues which are outdated?
    • OPEC price hawking, Citgo issues, destruction of PDVSA, guerilla as head of PDVSA Sandy 00:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Review omissions which create POV
  • Review vis-a-vis Saravask's last version, which had reduced article size. No longer relevant. Sandy 00:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Since The Carmona Decree is linked, address POV still in that article. Corrected, it was quite a chore. Sandy 00:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well I disagree it is the pinacle of POV :D, Sumate one is still leaking here or there.Flanker 18:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Also finish fixing Criticism and Bolivarian Missions, which are still unbalanced.
• Check *all* references for dead links, and continue with work of replacing "biased" sources with reliable, primary sources. This doesn't imply deleting of references.
• POV on speeches:
  • Do we need *seven* speeches by Chávez, balanced by *zero*?
    • That's not a NPOV violation; opponents' responses can and should be summarized. By including Chavez's speeches, the reader gets an idea of his style of rhetoric. And since this article is about revealing him, that's quite appropriate. -- WGee 17:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Review newer list of speeches on June 10 version, and decide which to keep.
  • Can anyone review the newer list, and see what we need to keep? Sandy 13:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Address imbalance in External Links.
• Improve picture in lead (172 said he would do it, hasn't)
• Freedom of speech issues not mentioned in article
  • Don't forget the supporters' arguments. And try to find sources that attribute the lack of press freedom directly to Chavez's policies (unlike the Amnesty International report, for instance, which fails to mention the cause of the lack of judicial independence). -- WGee 17:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • What fails to mention the causes is this Wiki article. There are volumes of reports and accounts of how Chavez consolidated power, eliminating all oversight (not just judicial). *This* article glosses over the entire subject. AI goes into the level of detail appropriate for their report: it's not their job to connect it to Chavez, just to point it out. Sandy 13:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      • It is not up to us to arbitrarily attribute the negative reports to certain policies. Thus, all reports in the article should mention a direct link to Chavez's policies. -- WGee 15:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Sorry, disagree. You changed some of my earlier edits to indicate there was no judicial oversight, but what you took out is that there is no oversight, period, and complete consolidation of power and elimination of separation of powers. The consolidation of power and elimination of oversight is what directly ties him to the negative reports. Sandy 17:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
          • That particular edit was made because the source didn't verify a complete consolidation of power. -- WGee 18:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Review early life, which appears to have some errors Unsourced was never verified, finally deleted. Sandy 00:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If no one is going to do this (someone who has access to literature in Venezuela), we need to delete or tag the possibly inaccurate statements. Sandy 13:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Later (after we get article restored)?
  • Súmate and vote rigging to extend term from 5 to 14 years, electoral fraud, stacking of Supreme Court and consolidation of power not covered well (if at all)
    • Claims of electoral fraud are mentioned to an extent. The rest of the claims can be included if they're from reputable sources and balanced by supporters' claims. -- WGee 17:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Review Enano's concerns in foreign policy: Nothing about Lula da Silva, nothing about Evo Morales, nothing about his relationship with Iran nor Lybia, nothing about the 2005 parliamentary elections, nothing about the weapon selling prohibition, nothing about the currency control, the 2002-03 general strike information very incomplete.
  • Shorten the article to make room for current events
    • As part of this job, check all daughter articles, and see if summaries per Summary Style can be shortened.
  • Have we sufficiently addressed or summarized the changes introduced by the The Constitutional Assembly anywhere?
  • Wikify all new text: lots of missing wiki links.

POVlist from SG

• Is there any discussion of the AD/COPEI corruption, which birthed Chávez?
• Seven Chávez speeches, no balance (overall balance problem in External links?)
• After a two-year imprisonment, Chávez was pardoned by President Rafael Caldera in 1994. Because? By saying nothing, in context of previous paragraphs, it sounds like the issue was with Perez, not Chavez, and he never should have been imprisoned.
• No mention at all of calls for vote abstention, in protest votes. No context for why abstention numbers are important.
• No significant mention of the damage done to oil industry, masked by rising oil prices. The entire section on the new constitution fails to explain how Chavez pulled it off, via extra-legal or extra-democratic means. Need to explain in plain language what was done.
• During this same election, Chávez himself stood for reelection. It hasn't been made clear to the unitiated that Chavez changed what was a single five-year Presidential term to two terms, in addition to wrangling another interim election, resulting in a possible 14-year term (and now he's talking about even more).
• No mention of violent take over of Coca-Cola plants to "feed the masses".
  • That was in the article before, but since people failed to understand its significance, it was removed. -- WGee 17:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• On April 9, 2002, CTV leader Carlos Ortega called for a two-day general strike. There's an abrupt introduction: no mention at all of all that led up to it, or how Chavez was dismantling a state-run oil industry that was well-respected in the industry overall.
• Approximately 500,000 people took to the streets on April 11, 2002 They took to the streets for many days.
• No mention of problem with new "universities"
• In early and mid-2003, the Venezuelan opposition began the process of collecting the millions of signatures needed to activate the presidential recall provision provided for in the 1999 Constitution. No mention of grassroots, civilian, vounteer organization, Súmate -- just "the opposition". No mention of raids and need to secure the signatures, or "gerrymandering" of the 20% number needed to effect a recall. Wasn't there a prior requirement of 15%, that he also got changed to 20 ??? Anyone ??
• Media, it sounds like the so-called "opposition" controls the air waves. No mention of the government-owned channels, or the data showing that Chavez commandeered more cadenas than any president before him. POV, by completely glossing over the issue of his control of the media. Leaves out extent of government-owned media, reach, and influence, especially considering Chavez cadenas and hours-long diatribes on radio.
• although drawing heavily from Simón Bolívar's ideals, according to whom? He calls it that, but no case is made for there being any connection between Chavez and Bolivar's ideology or philosophy. Good marketing. Need to clarify his claim vs. reality.
  • That's a minor issue of semantics; it can be easily rectified. -- WGee 17:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• No discussion of significant escalation of crime under Chávez, or how he has furthered social insecurity, class division and racial hatred. (ref name=PostCrime Reel, M. "Crime Brings Venezuelans Into Streets", Washington Post, (May 10, 2006), p. A17, Accessed 24 June 2006.)
  • Plently of mention of rising crime under Chavez, as claimed by The Economist. Class divisions can be explained by mentioning that the most vehement criticism of Chavez comes from the upper middle and upper classes, as Flanker was trying to do earlier. -- WGee 17:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Little discussion of deterioration of independence of the judiciary or separation of powers, very serious issues threatening Venezuela's democracy.
  • Independence of the judiciary is mentioned; we don't need a whole essay about it. The "serious issues threatening Venezuela's democracy" can be mentioned where appropriate in the article. But again, we don't need anti-Chavez essays. And if we're going to embed criticism in the article, why do we need a seperate Criticism article? -- WGee 17:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Pictures unbalanced: earlier version had a mix of favorable and unfavorable portrayals and captions. When text update is completed, add pictures which are reflective of text.
  • I don't think the pictures give a favourable view of Chavez; they just depict him in various political situations. What unfavourable images are you thinking of, anyway? -- WGee 17:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Images that portray events not favorable to him, including but not limited to his foreign policy gaffes. Sandy 13:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Disagree. The only one I think could be considered POV is the family one. The article for George W. Bush would never have any pictures like that, all the ones there are distinctly pro Bush, the ones here even are less "positive" then those - -- ×××jijin+machina | Chat Me!××× -- 16:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weapons buildup, drug trafficing center omitted
• No mention of Plaza Altamira military protest against Chavez, or the deaths there.
• Confrontation and disagreements with Catholic church not covered, in fact, the Personal life section is misleading by leaving it out.
• Criticism not included.

POV list from Flanker

Well we cannot have one side and not the other:

• Most issues of Human rights are not put in context, AI, and HRW detail only critiscism (that is what they are for) but compared to other countries it is not that relevant aside from the accusation (even sweeden check it out. [1]) and I would not even mention Colombia and the US itself [2][3]
  • You argue for verifiability, not truth (I argue that it's better to aim for both :-) Your discussion of AI and HRW context belongs in their articles. Sandy 14:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Context should be mentioned so as not to mislead readers into thinking that the right-wing and centre-left governments of Latin America maintain spot-on human rights records while leftist Chavez runs a Stalinist regime. So it's not necessarily a matter of truth, but a matter of NPOV policy. -- WGee 17:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• The economy was sabotaged for 2 years when the oposition was strongest, numbers need to reference the poverty hump for example: have a look.[4]
• Political prisoners report is vastly outdated, the only one of the list that is in jail is Carlos Ortega and that is because he returned to Venezuela and was using forged documents.
• Chavez's version of the 92 coup, even though I disagree with it it must be added for balance.
• The reason why the Sumate drive was being rejected (preemption of sorts for Sandy)
• The reason Sumate is being charged
• The recent threat on ending airwave frequency consessions is NOT shuting them down (think FCC) [5], I could find a translation of the comments made by Chavez, that said it is NOT policy it is empty habladera if we are to add everything Chavez says but does not do then we are bordering the irrelevant.
  • Threats accomplish the same thing: restriction of freedom of the press. Sandy 14:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • We can't base the article on your interpretations, Sandy. That would be rather misleading. -- WGee 17:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• No mention of the dozens of infrastructure projects slated to finish or open this year (Metros, rail, stadiums, bridges, highways etc) of course the viaduct1 collapse and the oposition claims of negligence are inevitable as well.
  • Counteracted by no mention of all the deterioration in the infrastructure, and his failure to even keep pace with older administrations on building housing, who did not have the oil windfall Chavez has to work with. Sandy 14:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Go ahead and add the criticism, but there's no reason to gloss over his achievements. -- WGee 17:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• No mention of Venezuela being one of the best host for refugees in the world [6]
  • Don't forget this: AI on refugees in Venezuela Sandy 01:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • And this: Colombians in Venezuela thank Chavez for new life Sandy 14:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• The Carter Center claimed that in 2000 the elections demonstrated the will of the people (their definition of fraud is disproving this) however they could not verify the elections for logistical reasons.
• Atributing every single sucsess and every single failure on Chavez as opossed to the executive, other branches, local/state/federal, and lastly the people themselves. I can understand policies initiated by most branches as "Chavez allies" but the judicial has ruled on many occasions against the government most recently the case against Mari Pili [7]
  • There are no other branches. Chavez has consolidated all power in his hands, and eliminated oversight, including judicial. That's not only verifiable, it's true :-) Sandy 14:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Seriously though, we can't assume throughout the article that Chavez is a dictator. If you really want to expose consolidation of power on a large scale, head over to the Vladimir Putin article :-) -- WGee 17:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Absence of multiple polls (including oposition polls: consultores, datanalysis, Keller and assoc) showing Chavez with a 50-60 point lead over his nearest rival for the presidential election.
  • Of course he'll win (he's got a well-versed mentor and lots of tricks like nationalizing illegal immigrants), but don't forget this: [8] Sandy 14:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • We can't exclude these vital polls because of his alleged "tricks". -- WGee 17:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• No mention that not a single journalist is currently jailed in Venezuela [9]Flanker 16:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • And ? Sandy 21:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

  Misleading. 141.153.125.31 21:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Sumate mentions charges for libel, leaking classified documents, and inciting racial hatred. But all of these inhibitions to free speech are commonplace in most Western states, heard by courts frequently. Just look at the recent leak of classified CIA documents in the New York Times; some politicians want the journalists tried for treason. -- WGee 17:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • But it glosses over the obvious PAcheco was pardoned by Chavez, he even stated that his own side needed thicker skin with re: to libel and slander. That law was not made by Chavez it was made by his supporters in the AN that could not tolerate being insulted, it again goes to the issue of what is Chavez and what is government, and true he had veto power to stop it but refused for internal politics. Poleo is currently evading justice and is wanted for murder of Danilo Anderson. My statment still stands there is not a single journalist jailed in Venezuela and if it must be mentinoed that there WERE the presidential pardon must be mentioned.Flanker 16:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• No mention Venezuelan democracy is ranked by its citizens as the second most satisfactory in the region. Showing the most rapid increase overall since 97 [10] [11] Flanker 04:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I hope you'll thoroughly read your references: they don't seem to say what you imply. Sandy 14:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • According to the poll, only 40% of Venezuelans are dissatisfied with their democracy—the second lowest percentage among the countries polled. If the Transparency International survey deserves mention, surely this one does as well. -- WGee 17:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes the answer is weakly presented 40% of Venezuelans distrust democracy down from what 60%?Flanker 16:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

OPEC

I've noticed references to Chávez's reputation as a price hawk in the article, but no reference (that I spotted at least) to the repeated calls for OPEC to begin trading in Euros rather than US dollars [12]. Surely the most important international issue involving Chávez. --Zleitzen 16:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well calls might be different than policy, Venezuela changed parts of its international reserves from Dollars to Euros, but oil is still sold in dollars. Flanker 18:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In general (and specifically with respect to oil, economy and foreign policy issues) this article is not up to date. (Recall that it was recently reverted to a version that is now 7 months outdated.) I included the missing OPEC issues in my ToDo list at the top of this talk page. We were ready to tackle the top of the article (Presidency), when the approach to the article changed (again) radically, away from Summary Style. Sandy 14:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

How is it need of an update? could you give a list?Flanker 14:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Image of Chávez in military uniform while in office

There has been some controversy over having this image on the Chávez article. So I'll explain the reasons why I added it in the hope that it could stay.

• 1) There was no image on the "2000–2001: Reelection" section.
  • Agree
• 2) The photo is representative of the public image of Chávez during the Venezuelan presidential election, 2000. During campaing rallies he wore the parachute-brigade uniform(in the image). He also wore other military uniforms including the one known as uniforme número uno de gala, only wore by Marcos Pérez Jiménez.
  • That is a paratrooper fatigue uniform
• 3) The photo is not in favor or against him, but presents a fact of his public image during the time. He appeared in uniform both in civil and military events. He embraced his background in the military and always commmented that he felt that he "is a soldier" and "that is the only thing he wished to be".
  • Agree
• 4)The fact that he is the first Venezuelan President to wear a military uniform while in office since Marcos Pérez Jiménez is a very important fact in the context of his biography and also Venezuelan history. This photo will help those unfamiliar with the history of Venezuela in the 20th century realized that no fully democratically elected President of Venezuela wore a uniform even though Venezuelans heads of state wore a military uniform for most of the century. Juan Vicente Gómez wore the uniform from 1908 to 1935, yet both Eleazar López Contreras and Isaías Medina Angarita made a conscious effort of avoiding the use of the military uniform and start dressing as civilians to help build and image of a civil head of state and therefore aiding the country's democratic transition process.
  • There has not been a single president to have served the military since MPJ. Gomez, Contreras a and Angarita preceded him.
• 5) After Chávez coup attempt of 1992, he was dishonorably discharged from the armed forces because he broke his oath to serve the President and the Constitution. He was therefore not allowed to ever wear the uniform again. Caldera's pardon did not change that, he was only to be allowed out of jail. When he became President and hence head of the armed forces, he chose to wear the uniform even though that is a civilian position and even though he was not allowed to wear it. Once again, onther important fact of his biography. (Caracas1830 15:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC))
  • Dishonorable discharge does not preclude you from wearing an uniform, ony it has to worn on protocolar occasions such as weddings and funerals.Flanker 18:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The 1992 sentence on Chávez's coup d'état was based on the following articles of the Código Orgánico de Justicia Militar.

Artículo 476. La rebelión militar consiste:1.- En promover, ayudar o sostener cualquier movimiento armado para alterar la paz interior de la República o para impedir o dificultar el ejercicio del Gobierno en cualquiera de sus poderes.

Artículo 481. La instigación a la rebelión se castigará: con prisión de cinco a diez años y expulsión de las Fuerzas Armadas, a los oficiales y clases; y prisión de cuatro a ocho años a los individuos de tropa o de marinería.

Artículo 411. La expulsión consiste en la declaración judicial de que el delincuente es indigno de pertenecer a las Fuerzas Armadas Nacionales, hecha por el Tribunal en la sentencia, sin formalidades especiales, y acarrea: 1.- Pérdida del grado y sus derechos. 2.- Pérdida de condecoraciones nacionales.

So, acordding to the Ley Orgánica de las Fuerzas Armadas Nacionales Artículo 218.- No podrán vestir el uniforme militar, bajo ninguna circunstancia, quienes hayan pasado a la situación de Reserva por sentencia penal condenatoria definitivamente firme o los que estando en esa situación, fueren sentenciados por delitos contra el honor militar.

Hence, no right to wear the military uniform under any circumstance.(Caracas1830 10:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC))

I do not think that is correct, there have been two organic laws about the FAN neither say what you linked Leyes organicas Venezolanas. The newer version was approved by the AN in 2005 [13] meaning that the one in 1995 [14] was the one in effect, neither mention what is quoted. Flanker 16:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Caracas1830, thanks for checking in. I am not aware of the intricacies of the specific laws, and which of those were changed by Chavez's court-packing and other methods. I came across an article which appears to address your edits, so I inserted a reference. Can you comment in more detail on the following passage from a source, which I had inserted and which was subsequently reverted by other editors here:

Thanks to a specially tailored law,[2] he is the first President of Venezuela to wear a military uniform since Marcos Pérez Jiménez in 1958. Shifter, Michael. "In Search of Hugo Chávez". Foreign Affairs, May/June 2006. 85:3. From p. 48: "To rule, Chávez depends chiefly on the military, the institution he knows best and trusts most. Thanks to a specially tailored law, Chávez remains an active military officer, and more than one-third of the country's regional governments are in the hands of soliders directly linked to Chávez. As the editor of the daily Tal Cual, Teodoro Petkoff has noted, 'For all practical purposes, this is a government of the armed forces.' "

In an interesting departure from Wiki policies, other editors here have decided that, if they can't access a specific article online, it has to be quoted in the footnote, so I quoted the specific passage. They have also apparently decided that Foreign Affairs is a biased source, which is interestingly hypocritical, considering the extensive sourcing in this article from VenAnalysis, ZNet, CEPR, Weisbrot, RedOrbit and others. Are you able to shed any light on the "specially tailored law" phrase? It sounds like he may have had the law changed by his court-packing, so that he could wear the uniform ???Sandy 13:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy the Legislative (meanind the AN) is the one that makes the laws not the Judiciary. Besides it's ilegal nature is still in question. BTW Rde orbit is an archived AP/Reuters piece please check sources before you bash them.Flanker 16:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"Bash" ???? hmmmm .... It strikes me that, the more balanced facts are presented for this article, the more agitated editors have become; and the more desperate the means of suppressing NPOV edits to this article have become. The appearance is that you don't want to let the whole story be told. Sandy 16:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy please assume good faith, you claimed the redorbit link was from a biased source when in reality (it apperantly has been removed) they are archiving a Reuters piece [15].Flanker 17:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Flanker, thank you for pointing out that I was quoting a project before the Assembly that was never approved to reform and make more specific article 114 (Artículo 114. El carácter que se adquiere con un grado es permanente y solo se perderá por sentencia firme que imponga penas de degradación o expulsión, pronunciada por los Tribunales Militares en la forma determinada por el Código de Justicia Militar).[16]. The 1995 law, which modified the 1983 version, it is still very clear in saying that the rank is lost by expulsion. Also, as I pointed out before in the Código Orgánico de Justicia Militar current at the time it is said in article 411 that an expulsion consists in losing your rank and its rights, so it was understood that the person was not allowed to wear the uniform. Chávez was fully aware that he was not a part of the military and did not have a military rank because of his expulsion, so much so that he approved a change in the LOFAN in 2005 to include the "specially tailored law" that Sandy points out. The 2005 version include a reform of article 40 (Artículo 40. Comandante en Jefe. El Presidente de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela tiene el grado militar de Comandante en Jefe, y es la máxima autoridad jerárquica de la Fuerza Armada Nacional)[[17] to make clear that the President has a military rank of Commander in Chief and not just a civilian position, hence, he is able to wear an uniform. So, until 2005 he was not legally allowed to wear the uniform, now he is. But the fact stills stands, he is the first President to wear a military uniform (legally or not) while in office since Marcos Pérez Jiménez.(Caracas1830 19:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC))

So, it appears to me that the caption, as referenced by Foreign Affairs was accurate, and there's no reason not to bring this fact forward. If Flanker thinks the issue needs further analysis in the text, that could be done also, but it looks to be fairly straightforward. He changed the law so he could be in the military after he was previously expelled, and wearing the uniform was a big deal to him, so there's no reason to hide that information. Sandy 19:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Commander in chief is NOT a military rank anymore than it is in the US, just because you are elected president does not mean that you are a member of the FAN nor does Chavez claim to. Chavez may have lost the rights and rank, but those are not specifically related to uniform, more to do with salaries and pensions, there are no specific laws tailored to wearing uniform wheter in 1995 or 2005.Flanker 18:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

WIth the 1995 LOFAN he didn't have a rank (Artículo 51. El Presidente de la República es el Comandante en jefe de las Fuerzas Armadas Nacionales) Notice no grado militar. However, the 2005 LOFAN article 40 says tiene el grado militar de(has the military rank of) Commander in Chief. It cannot get more clear than that. Wearing a military uniform is a right belonging only to a member of the armed forces. Can I wear an uniform? I can't... why? because I don't have that right. (Caracas1830 20:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC))

It is semantics in the US constitution it is 'title' in essence everything is the same the president is the highest ranking member of the whole armed forces, but that does not mean that he gets an uniform, training, salary or pension, Chavez can't wear a Navy uniform because he was a paratrooper. He can wear it because he owns it, more to do with property rights than a FAN laws. The beef with the uniform was protocol, some elements in the FAN did not like him breaching protocol. Flanker 21:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Semantics is exactly what is important for Chávez, because he felt the need to have a military rank. For the sake of comparison lets take the United States Constitution into account: Article Two of the United States Constitution Section 2 Presidential Powers- "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States". Notice that it does not say anything about the President having the military rank of Commander in Chief. It is almost identical with 1995 LOFAN Article 51. In both cases is a 'title' militarily speaking, not in 2005 LOFAN in which the President has a military rank and he is the highest hierarchical authority. Notice the difference? Once again, it is not about the training, salary and so on(and by the way, just because 'he owns the uniform' it does not mean he has the right to wear it, remember that he was expelled from the armed forces -no rank and no rights-)...it is about having a rank and using the uniform, otherwise why the same article 40 would say las insignias de grado y el estandarte del Comandante en Jefe serán establecidas en el reglamento respectivo if it is not about wearing a uniform? and after all, legally or not he has used a military uniform while being President, something that nobody has done since 1958, and that is what the image caption should say.(Caracas1830 00:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC))

Then why hasn't he been punished for it? Chavez was president in 99, ran a campaign in 98 why wasn't he punished between release and then? There is no law regarding uniform in the FAN only protocol.Flanker 01:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Punishment or not (he didn't wear the uniform until he became President -no rank, no rights-), he is wearing the uniform while serving as President (Caracas1830 01:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)).

Well first of all the law was passed in 05 so the theory that: he became president and poof. Is inacurate, he did wear an uniform on the camapign trail in 98 [18] Notice the V sign that was the campaign slogan for the creation of the fifth republic. BTW anybody can wear an uniform if they legally own it, notice the tons of red berets his supporters use.Flanker 02:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You can't be serious!! That's not a military issue uniform. That's the MVR beret. Where is the seal? his name? rank? and the person next to him, is he also wearing a military uniform?(Caracas1830 04:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC))

I do believe you have a point that it is not his uniform Beret, I will keep looking for pictures of him wearing the uniform before becoming President, however you still have to prove that it was ilegal under the 95 law, specifically dealing with the uniform.Flanker 17:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

We've now seen the laws, the situation is clear and backs up what the reference says, and we have a valid, primary source for the words about the specially tailored law. Time to add the content back in, along with the reference. Flanker protests much over three little words, which are backed by the law and a primary source. The facts are the facts: Chavez wants his uniform, tailored a law so he could wear it, and it would be POV for us to cover up that fact. Sandy 01:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the image has to be removed but a good neutral caption Has to be there, such as he is the first president since MPJ to have served in the military.Flanker 18:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That is not neutral: it hides basic facts, such as "thanks to a specially tailored law"; that is, a law tailored to fit the circumstances of a President who was expelled from the military, and now wants to wear the uniform. Sandy 19:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm losing track of the new list of Wiki rules for the Chavez article: from memory ... no external links to sites unfavorable to Chavez, no direct quotes from anyone but Chavez, no speeches from anyone other than Chavez, no sources not available on the internet, no direct quotes that are not favorable to Chavez, reliable sources are not reliable if they say anything against Chavez even though we can use extreme leftist sources, and now, even though Chavez got a law passed so he could wear a uniform, we're not allowed to say that or show him in uniform. Let the story be told. Can't Chavez withstand the scrutiny? Sandy 01:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Captions and titles are no places to argue a POV a simple neutral explanation is all that is needed, I initially supported the picture because there was none from 99 but looking back there was one of him with Chirac why did you remove it?Flanker 01:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The caption must include the facts(which are by themselves NPOV): he is wearing a military uniform while in office and 2)he is the first one to do so since Pérez Jiménez in 1958. There is no way to provide counterfacts, because there is photographic evidence. (Caracas1830 09:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

What else needs to be done?

It seems we have reached a lull point in edits, what more is missing from the article? Just to get a few ideas.Flanker 21:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You're just kidding, right ? Sandy 21:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Err not really, I guess we were waiting for you Sandy and I don't believe we are finished but certainly we can outline future changes while there is some peace and quiet.Flanker 21:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's going to be hard to move forward as long as double standards and non-Wiki roadblocks continue to be put in place. Yet to be resolved is the POV criticism fork. Before my lightening strike, we were at a point that we had earlier consensus to shorten the article, I made a good faith consensual effort at removing all the criticism to the daughter article (because we were going to summarize ALL sections), and lo and behold, as soon as I removed all the criticism, it seems that no more summary was wanted. The criticism needs to come back, or we have a decidedly POV fork, which was created by my good faith effort, because we were going to shorten everything else. Since some of you changed your minds on using Summary style, the article needs to go back to where it was before the POV fork was created: that is, with criticism in the article, and not in a POV fork. New, and non-Wiki, conditions are being placed here all the time on editing. Equal standards are not being applied. Criticism has to come back, or the article is POV. And we rebuild and summarize equally from there, this time, paying equal attention to which sections to shorten, and not just shortening criticism. What has become clear is that, reliable sources or not, you will raise an objection to *anything* that is not favorable to Chavez. Sandy 02:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"you will raise an objection to *anything* that is not favorable to Chavez." That is quite an accusation, what happened to civility? It has been multiple times already that you accused me of being dishonest to wikipedia principles, I never accused you of pushing anti-Chavez content. For the record I agreed to the Dodd report, Tascon list, crime and corruption additions.Flanker 17:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand: it's not your choice to disagree with content from multiple reliable sources. It was by graciousness that some of us have accepted your content based ONLY on the notably biased VenAnalysis. Sandy 01:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

And, as far as I'm concerned, there is an outline. There's a POV list and a ToDo list, and I've not changed my mind mid-stream. The stall right now is how to resolve the POV fork, so we can move forward from there. Sandy 02:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you are the only one who acknowledges this POV fork. Because the criticism section is a proportionate size and both critics' and supporters' claims are (supposed to be) covered in the "Criticism of" article, a POV fork cannot exist. -- WGee 07:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, my editing has stalled not because of this POV fork disagreement, but because of my recently acquired summer job, which leaves me much less time to edit Wikipedia. -- WGee 07:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Good luck in your job, drop by the talk page once in a while as well, it is not as research intensive as editing the article.Flanker 17:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. -- WGee 20:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The quote about not accepting the referendum

JRSP Made a very pointed observation from recalling the events of Nov 2002, evidently that what is quoted in the article about the referendum and Chavez claiming he would not leave if 90% voted against him, according to the editor he was talking about consultive referendum rather than a constitutionally binding recall referendum. Apperantly there is no link to the verifiable source with the quote and google only leaves trails to non-verifiable sources like Militares democraticos. What are the options available?Flanker 17:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The transcript was found apperantly the quote is taken out of context since it does not explain that he was referring to a consultive referendum that is not constitutionally binding. [19]

Así que pónganse más bien ¿a qué? a hacer su trabajo que tienen que hacer, su trabajo

político, hacer propuestas dentro del marco de la Constitución Bolivariana. ¿Referendum consultivo para sacar a Chávez? Mi, no lo van a lograr, olvídense de eso. No lo van a lograr, no lo van a lograr ni aun cuando el Consejo Nacional Electoral apruebe la famosa pregunta, que es una pregunta totalmente contradictoria ¿está usted de acuerdo en que el Presidente Chávez renuncie voluntariamente? Esa es una contradicción en sí mismo. ¿Está usted de acuerdo en que el caballo blanco de Bolívar sea verde? Una cosa así. Más o menos así es la cosa. Ah, no, no, olvídense de cuentos, yo ni en el supuesto de que el Consejo Electoral declare o decrete o tome la decisión de que la pregunta es válida, bueno vaya. Ni en el supuesto que el Tribunal Supremo de Justicia también diga que la pregunta es válida. Bueno, vayan. Ni en el supuesto que hagan ese referendum y saquen 90% de los votos, yo no voy a renunciar."

I do believe the quote should be removed and the quote affirming his intention to respect the binding referendum.Flanker 19:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree both quotes have to be removed ( including my edits) . Thanks for your research, Flanker. JRSP 19:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The "quote" appears also in the recall referendum article[20]

Done all three.Flanker 20:41, 18 July 2006 (UT)

Not so fast, fellows. Since you provided the transcript of the Alo PResidente show on Talk:Criticism of Hugo Chávez, it is pretty clear that he said he wouldn't go, even if the Supreme Court ruled against him. And don't be so fast to delete referenced content, rather than expand on it. And, wait for Caracas1830 and others to have a look at your interpretation. The wording is clear: not even if the TSJ approved it. Ni en el supuesto que el Tribunal Supremo de Justicia también diga que la pregunta es válida. Sandy 21:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I left a copy of the "quote" on [21], for discussing a new translation/edit of the original quotation JRSP 22:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

After lightening struck my house, I am admittedly tired of having to dig back into history and diffs to reconstruct references that are lost or damaged. The quote does NOT include refs, and I don't want to have to go back and reconstruct them. Please do NOT delete referenced text. Change it if you must, but wiser still is to wait for other editors to weigh in, and resolve the edit on the talk page before deleting referenced text. When you delete references, it takes so much work to repair them. Sandy 22:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why should it stay? A consultive referendum is non-binding adding all of the requisite to understanding the event would itself add uneccesary bulk to the article. if it were to remain it has to be prefaced what the consultive referendum meant and the response to the recall referendum as well. We can wait a day I was willing to do so from the beginning.Flanker 00:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Because, as pointed out by Caracas1830 on Criticism of Hugo Chávez, the story is much more complex than presented. I do agree we should tell the full story, if that's what you want, particularly since it also covers one of my points about info missing from the article: how Chávez kept changing the laws and raising the bar, so he could stay in power. Let's keep the discussion where it originated, on the criticism page. It has now forked to 3 articles. Sandy 11:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

He did not change the laws Sandy the law was clear, a constitutionally binding referendum can only happen midway:

"Artículo 72. Todos los cargos y magistraturas de elección popular son revocables.

Transcurrida la mitad del período para el cual fue elegido el funcionario o funcionaria, un número no menor del veinte por ciento de los electores o electoras inscritos en la correspondiente circunscripción podrá solicitar la convocatoria de un referendo para revocar su mandato."

This is starting to border original research, original research full of holes BTW.Flanker 14:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the source is not the original speech but this page from a partisan website JRSP 15:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that when it first popped out, I only found it referenced there through google. It is my fault for not having been more thorough in searching for the context of the speech. Never rely on non-verifiable sources. Specially the extremely biased ones.Flanker 16:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It reminds me of the antisemitism allegations JRSP 16:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It also happened recently here [22] I wonder if it is incompetence by these sources or maliciousness (militares clearly the latter).Flanker 16:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are the two references If something is to be added please do it here and then if we agree post it in the article, not the other way around. It should have never made it in the first place as is, fault all of us.Flanker 18:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

We should scour all of the daughter articles for its reference, I caound this one, critiscism of Hugo Chavez, recall referendum, and sumate all removed.Flanker 18:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP

"Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia" [[23]]JRSP 07:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

On the 4.3 2002: Coup and strike/lockout section of the article it is said: "Chávez took over the Venezuelan airwaves several times in the early afternoon in what is termed a cadena, or a commandeering of the media airwaves to broadcast public announcements, asking protesters to return to their homes, playing lengthy pre-recorded discourses, and attempting to block coverage of the ensuing violence." But according at least to this video at 14.20 min (from the oposition) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5793200611323299754&q=chavez Chavez says the time during the broadcasting and it is ok. I don't know if this is considered a reference but at least in my impression it is not pre-recorded footage. --Antrax 03:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the video, but it is not necessary. Any statement that 1) says something negative about a living person & 2) is not sourced must be removed without hesitation. The burden of proof is on the editor who adds the negative statement. I already removed from the article the phrase you quoted above JRSP 03:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You are welcomed, as I already posted one video from the opposition I leave here another one with footage from a non opposing documentary: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-295652150252909057&q=chavez

salutations--Antrax 04:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Remember to apply the WP:BLP policy, don't ask for permission, just delete. Please, be careful not to remove properly sourced criticism. BLP is a wikipedia policy JRSP 04:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

HI, Antrax. I encourage you to read the rest of this talk page to get a more balanced view of the application of WP:BLP. JRSP went on a delete spree (some examples given below), deleting quite a bit of referenced text that doesn't apply under BLP at all. His suggestion above amounts to an invitation to engage in edit warring, which is contrary to Wiki philosophy. If you have questions about any material, I do encourage you to use the talk page. Your impression of the time on one video isn't really a reliable source, and deleting material which anyone can easily verify could be viewed as not acting in good faith. If JRSP would spend the same time seeking sources as he does deleting material, we'd have a better Wiki. Sandy 11:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I encourage you all to read the Wikipedia official policy. It is very clear: unsourced or poorly sourced negative statements about living persons must be deleted without hesitation JRSP 11:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you have a unique interpretation of "poorly sourced" material, as evidenced by your delete sprees. Sandy 12:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi All, there's been a miss interpretation, I was talking about the "pre-recorded" allegation and not to all of the phrase, I only don't know from where does wikipedia gets they were prerecorder, because according to the video he was speaking live..., the rest of the phrase is ok. Best regards,--200.89.180.233 14:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there you have the problem with JRSP's premature deletions. Now, let's see if he fixes it, or assumes others will do the work of reconstructing what he deconstructs. Another way he misinterprets is that BLP is intended to avoid slander of live persons: JRSP uses it to delete any minor statement he doesn't want to see in the article. Sandy 14:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Summary of the criticism situation

I moved all of the Criticism from this article to Criticism of Hugo Chávez, when we were engaged in a good faith, consensual effort to employ Summary Style. As a show of good faith, I started first with Criticism, exorcising all of it to the Criticism of Hugo Chávez article, and briefly summarizing it back here in the main article.

Once I completed that, a group of editors decided: poof, enough Summary, the article is just the right length, no more summary, and Criticism can't come back to the main article, from whence it originated.

So, a POV fork was created, even though the Criticism article had survived an AfD, with the conclusion that it was NOT a POV fork, since we were shortening every area of the article.

A group of editors banned together to prevent referenced, sourced, verifiable Criticism from being brought back to this article, and yet, have now blanked the criticism from the Criticism of Hugo Chávez article to which it was moved.

This doesn't seem like good faith editing, especially since it was through my efforts that the Criticism was removed. Further, the double standards that are being exercised here to prevent the introduction of NPOV into this article have reached alarming levels. Radical left-wing sources are accepted as "reliable", and are used extensively throughout the articles, while well-known, reliable sources documenting statements less favorable to Chávez are rejected via "majority rule". Rules well outside of Wiki policies and procedures are being enforced here by a band of editors: no reliable sources which may be criticial of Chávez, no speeches by anyone but Chávez, no direct quotes by anyone but Chávez, no sources that aren't available on the internet for all to read, etc. It seems that NPOV is no longer a goal of this article, and any and all obstacles will be put in place to prevent all sides of the Chávez story from being told. Sandy 00:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_vs._other_policies

"It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially the neutral point of view (NPOV). At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus."

Editing by consensus is much preferred to editing by strength of numbers opposed to NPOV. We had consensus before, and we were operating in good faith when I removed the criticism from the main article. I am sorry to see this situation deteriorate. Sandy 00:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy please assume good faith, even if you plainly disagree. The rules did change, yes. Meaning that now the starting point has changed. Instead of a verbose unbalanced article we are starting from a stub. A lot of the article was in clear violation of WP:BLP meaning it was a candidate for WP:CSD instead I decided to stub it since it was the only neutral content I knew of. It cannot be merged back in to the mother article either.Flanker 00:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You haven't presented a single example of anything that violated BLP. You have blanked content well referenced by reliable sources. Sandy 00:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy I am not going to go reference by reference and find examples but I will start with what made me decide to stub it:

"In its annual survey, Berlin-based Transparency International ranked Venezuela as one of only a dozen countries where perceived corruption had "greatly increased", resulting in a ranking of 130 out of the 150 countries surveyed,[54] to become the nation perceived as the third most corrupt in Latin America, above Paraguay and Haiti. Critics claim that rampant corruption reaches the highest levels of Venezuelan airport and security officials, that billions of dollars have been siphoned away from social programs by corrupt officials, and that leaders of the military have limited oversight, creating an environment in which impunity and corruption develop"

When that economist reference[24] EXPLICITLY states:

"In power, he has revealed a taste for designer suits and Cartier watches. He has placed several members of his family in government jobs. Such foibles apart, there is no evidence that he is personally corrupt"Flanker 00:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You know as well as I know that there were and are multiple reliable references to back all of those statements throughout the articles you blanked. You know there were no statements that weren't referenced to reliable sources, with the exception of anything that was left over from the reverted FA version which we had not yet referenced. I am sorry to see you stretching this so far, to avoid NPOVing the article. Sandy 00:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I know that Sandy but you still don't get it none of them states Hugo Chavez is corrupt and that is the whole point, wikipedia cannot go around innuendos and half accusations. You have to show corruption personally leads to Chavez. For it to be included in his article. Flanker 01:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I, personally, had nothing to do with the removal of criticism from the Criticism of Hugo Chávez article, but I will say again that it is NOT a POV fork. Wikipedia's content fork guideline explicitly states that article spinouts (i.e. daughter articles with proportionate summaries in the main article) are not POV forks.

How can an article which highlights both negative and positive allegations be a POV fork? You keep making this out to be a purposeful attempt to hide solely criticism, but the fact is that I essentially pushed for the summarisation of both criticism and praise. And I really don't know why you are still complaining about the issue, since the criticism section is a proportionate size and written in a neutral tone. Insert the references if you really want to, but there's no excuse to expand the criticism section to make it one of the longest sections in the article. -- WGee 01:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

-- WGee 01:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, different camps are arguing different points. If it is a POV fork, it comes back. If it's not a POV fork, its content stays, and still needs to be adequately summarized back to here. Flanker blanked the content. In either case, the conclusion is the same: criticism of Chavez is not allowed. Sandy 01:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think an article on criticism is fine: Hugo Chavez is a polemic man. The other alternative would be to put the criticism in the main article but it is already too lengthy. JRSP 01:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the point. I made a good-faith effort to remove *extensively* referenced content from this article, when we were trying to shorten it. Then, other editors changed their minds, shortening stopped (how convenient, since criticism was gone), but Criticism couldn't come back. You all are having it both ways. Sandy 01:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Critiscism of Hugo Chavez should be that assuming the reader wants to know more about critiscism he goes there, however it must now meet WP:BLP and WP:NPOV the previous article met neither and under WP:CSD it was made into a stub.Flanker 01:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There was NOTHING that we wrote recently that didn't meet BLP, and you know it. And, if we split the articles, either we accept summary style and it's not a POV fork, or we bring the criticism back here, but you can't have it either way you want, so you can avoid the criticism. You had NO legitimate reason to blank the content, and I'm requesting that you put it back. Sandy 01:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetically speaking, the removal of all criticism from the article would not make it biased, because all we'd be left with is true, non-partisan statements (since there are virtually no pro-Chavez claims in the article). Removing all or some of the criticism may be a blow to the article's comprehensiveness, but it would not make the article pro-Chavez. Nonetheless, I am not enthused by the far-reaching, speedy deletions in the criticism article. Only if the criticism was not sourced at all would I support its removal without discussion; whether or not a claim is poorly sourced is subjective and accordingly deserves discussion. In fact, Jimbo only recommended that unsourced information be deleted immediately; he did not mention poorly sourced information. -- WGee 01:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, couldn't the poorly sourced information be corrected rather than outrightly deleted? -- WGee 01:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What poorly sourced information? You were here, WGee; you know how rigorous we were being. Sandy 01:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, some of the claims I have encountered in this article over the course of my involvement weren't entirely backed up by the references: that's the poorly sourced information I'm referring to. -- WGee 01:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It was the other article that was changed drastically not this one, and it was plenty that needed to be changed. Deletion is demanded to be aggressive and uncompromising. As for it being me that changes it back is not my decision anymore, any editor has the power to do the same if I reverted to the old standard.Flanker 01:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing changed in the other article, and you know it. I had a lightening strike, and work here got stalled, as we were waiting to figure out what to do with Criticism, and it hasn't changed. And yes, you do have to be the one to put it back, unless you expect the rest of us to engage in yet another revert war started by you. Sandy 02:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly the point nothing changed since I made the comment months ago about the article, however the rules changed, maybe we should have all read the manual from begining to end before we wasted our free time. WP:BLP also excempts an editor from the 3RRR if he is deleting it.Flanker 02:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If you should see unreferenced criticism, you can delete it all you want. Even I've done that, on numerous occassions. Nothing has changed: that is common sense even if you hadn't read BLP. You can't delete criticism referenced from primary sources. Put the content back. This is not consensual, good faith editing. Sandy 02:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The only poorly-sourced information I've seen is the ABUNDANCE of content here that is ONLY backed by a notably biased source, VenAnalysis. If you recall, at one point I had to delete some of my Criticism sources, as I had too many of them, and I have them from a variety of sources. And yet, Flanker adds all the content he wants, which is a WP:BLP problem, because it is ONLY supported by the biased VenAnalysis. When VenAnalysis makes a claim, it's accepted here, no questions. But content backed by multiple reliable sources is deleted. Double standard. Sandy 01:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP Says nothing about positive statements, positive statments do not leave a website (or its editors) liable for a Libel suit. Negative statements now have to be made so painfully obvious that it was said by the high-quality source and that they are responsible.Flanker 01:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

All new content, negative or positive, since I've been working on this article has been referenced. What is your argument? You are coming up with one extreme after another to prevent criticism of Chavez, even as so many of us compromise on accepting your dubious sources, like VenAnalysis. Sandy 02:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to current standards no, I have been languishing for weeks looking for sources to back my additions of the economic rewrite that needs almost 2 sources per sentence to pass. So I know what strict standards are and am adhering to them. Despite them not being as strict as negative statements per policy. VenAnalysis is not a compromise, they are a WP:RS besides it has almost been purged from the article leaving very few iterations, almost half of them in the cristiscism sub-section used to attack Chavez from the left.Flanker 02:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get that they have almost been purged, when they (and other extreme far-left) sources are used extensively, yet you reject content from the mainstream Foreign Affairs magazine? And, when you used VenAnalysis as the only source to criticize a living person in a bio? Flanker, put the criticism back, or restore the POV tag to this article. This is not good faith, consensual editing. Sandy 02:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine to be specific I counted 11 refs and 10 unique links, 3 of them critiscism from the left. Out of 127 references. So yeah compared to when the article started they have been purged. Foreign Affairs was for pay Venanalysis is not so verifiability is at stake.Flanker 02:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you haven't counted Weisbrot and CEPR and your other "non-partisan" sources, but if I use a "think tank" it's not accepted. Sandy 02:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well obviously they are not Venanalysis which was the point of this statement, you cannot just find an article with a paragraph vaguely referencing a subject you want to touch on and then elaborating on it. It has to be almost paraphrased now what they say if it is negative and related specifically to Chavez.Flanker 02:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Was the daughter article stubbed because some statements were poorly referenced? I suggest that Criticism to Hugo Chávez should be restored or re-inserted into the main article. If you object Flanker, please state specifically what part of the guidelines is criticism breaking, and if possible specify where in the previous content, because honestly, I'm having a hard time believing your arguments. --Enano275 03:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Right. To just revert most of an article, when it was almost all referenced, is not in the spirit of Wiki. I can see removing a paragraph to the talk page for discussion, but even when we do that, and even when an analysis of the text clearly shows it's appropriate, Flanker still objects, with these long rambling tangential arguments that have little relevance to the content. Sandy 03:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Reinsertion also violates WP:BLP I am going to bed will pick up the debate tomorrow, Critiscism of Hugo Chavez could end up with 99% of the original claims it only has to be appropiately negatively referenced, and no it was not appropiately negatively referenced, which means it has to say what the article references and not go into a tangent.Flanker 03:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, when you wake up... could you explain me how reinsertion of properly sourced material violates WP:BLP? That's the kind of things that I understand.--Enano275 04:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think what's needed is a thorough re-write/re-assessment of the criticism article to remove any questionable inferences and to re-build the article to everyone's satisfaction. As long as Flanker intends to allow the re-insertion of the most relevant, notable, and well-referenced criticism, then his actions are not unreasonable. -- WGee 04:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess if I broke it I will fix it then, I will dedicate full time to that article now then.Flanker 15:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Note reinsertion of properly referenced negative material is encouraged by me, you cannot take an article and write a prose attacking Chavez on ley Resorte when such a source does not single him out, you cannot imply he is totalitarian either when it was the AN that was responsible for that law and there is AMPLE evidence[25] that Chavez refuses to enforce that law. Flanker 15:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As I've said before, the article needs a thorough reassessment. I actually think your revert could jump-start the process, though the way you went about has deservingly been found controversial. You also have a point in that some of the insinuations of the criticism were unfounded, outlandish, and unsourced. Like Zleitzen said, we shouldn't connect the dots.

So, clearly the article needs work to make it neutral; sweeping deletions, however, are not the best way to effect neutrality. As you can see, such bold action arouses much indignation.

-- WGee 17:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to keep un-indenting, but the page becomes unreadable on my screen. Yes, it needs a reassessment, and Criticism had a LOT of content that was left over from previous versions, before I began to remove content from here to there. Since I didn't want to ruffle feathers, I left the old content, added the new, and intended to come back to re-merge the entire thing in our Summary Style work. That was when the rules of the game changed, and this series of articles departed from a consensual process, and that is not a productive way to work. Progress on both articles stalled. Now, we have what appears to be a broad interpretation of WP:BLP by Flanker, on top of all the other issues we were still trying to work out. Flanker seems to think he can delete anything unflattering to Chavez, even if referenced. If Flanker persists in working outside of consensus and in such a disruptive manner, an outside opinion of his editing is going to be needed. Since he thinks he's rightfully using BLP, he also thinks he's exempt from 3RR, so there's no point in reverting his destruction, and I'm not interested in engaging in revert wars anyway. We have been stalled, and in revert wars, for weeks because of this sort of editing.

It is not only Criticism that needs a re-assessment. This article does, as well. The top is prose-heavy, ancient history, and we have a few paragraphs of Criticism left at the bottom. That is not NPOV. We need to go back to the version *before* I removed all the Criticism, since my good faith effort at removing criticism was invalidated by subsequent decisions, and rebuild this article and the Criticism article from that point, removing content equally from all sections to daughter articles. It wasn't a great display of good faith to decide to stop using Summary Style as soon as Criticism was exorcised to daughter articles, leaving this article unbalanced.

But first, someone has to get Flanker to have a better understanding of liability arising from libel and slander according to laws in the USA, and to which Wiki is subject, so that he can understand BLP better. He is going well beyond the intent of BLP in removing referenced criticism of Chavez, and this is only the latest in a series of extreme moves that have kept us from balancing the articles, and stalled consensual progress on the articles. If it takes an outside appraisal to get Flanker to understand that he can't broadly blank referenced content in the name of BLP, we may need to ask for an outside opinion. Or, we can decide to start working together again, as we were before the revert. Wiki is not a place for editing by group bullying and revert wars. Flanker, please restore the content you AGAIN deleted from Criticism. Sandy 18:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This article does, as well. The top is prose-heavy, ancient history, and we have a few paragraphs of Criticism left at the bottom. That is not NPOV. That is a non sequitur, first of all. Verbosity, outdatedness, and a summarised criticism section do not make the article biased. Anyway, I've told you that I think the article is an appropriate size—readers will skip the subjects they don't care to read about. And what "ancient history" is there? The history only spans 14 or so years, all those years relevant. -- WGee 18:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If you *really* believe that an article this large, with content this old, is a relevant and concise summary of Chavez, then you will have no problem with a Criticism section that is as large, comprehensive, and expansive as the rest of the article. What is disproportionate right now is Criticism to the rest of the article, and that is the definition of POV. Sandy 18:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of Chavez page

Please work with what you have rather than turning that article into a comparative stub. Some of the material may need work - but removing huge chunks is not the answer. I've restored the last Sandy full length version in true 172 style . And have made a few amendments for starters, but there are still a few major issues here. Avoid joining the dots, stick to detailing notable crticisms and everyone will be laughing. I'm off back to the Condi Rice waiting room where I'm hanging around for a damn page unprotection to make a miniscule edit to the Cuban section. Good luck! --Zleitzen 05:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Flanker blanking of article

Flanker, even after Zleitzen's restore, you are systemically blanking the Criticism article of referenced text again. You don't seem to have a good understanding of WP:BLP. Please refrain. I am not going to engage in another revert war initiated by your actions. Good faith efforts at working with you seem to have stalled, and I am wondering if it is time to ask that you be blocked from editing these articles. Sandy 16:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Then you do not understand the what Zeitzen said meaning that work was still needed to be done, if you want to ask for them to block me then go ahead. I have adhered to policy to the letter.Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page.Flanker 16:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

In case you need to see it again, here is what Zleitzen said: Some of the material may need work - but removing huge chunks is not the answer. You are going well beyond WP:BLP when you delete well-referenced text. Please restore the Criticism article to the last version by Zleitzen, so that we can proceed with consensus. Sandy 18:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Consensus? JRSP 18:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry Sandy but it is within WP:BLP I gave good reason for what I removed and what I found was only superficial removals by the afromentioned editor, I decided to do the same only more thorough. I removed poorly referenced negative statements, agrressively according to Jimbo Wales.[26] You and I can reconstruct the critiscism only with strong references and strong prose from now on.Flanker 18:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

In the version that Zleitzen left, you deleted well-referenced statements. Your intransigence is interfering with progress. JRSP, consenus? Give others a chance to weigh in. It is this sort of precipitous editing that causes problems, is disruptive, and weakens good faith. Restore the article to where it was, let us move forward from there without extreme measures. Sandy 18:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry Sandy but policy from the very top, supercedes consensus or debate, Jimbo Wales demands that it be deleted on the spot, see below so you can understand what you did on MCM, applies here.Flanker 18:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposals for implemening the BLP policy

Here is a suggestion, let me know what you all think:

Unsourced -> Merciless Deletion

Perhaps poorly sourced -> move to talk, put a disclaimer on top and let's discuss

This only applies to negative statements(including innuendos) on LPs JRSP 18:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

But then it also says delete from talk, (wikipedia even reserves the right to delete it from its history) I don't think people understand what is at stake here, it is the legality of wikipedia, not its encyclopedic value (which was VERY poor to begin with). poorly sourced statmentes are removed and only high quality statmentes sourced and paraphrased on what they say remains. I don't understand why Sandy thinks that Maria Corina Machado should be protected under this policy but not Chavez, Sandy deleted all negative statements to Maria Corina Machado from the articles and the talk pages aggressively, a policy I support under the new rules.Flanker 18:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That's silly: there have been NO poorly-sourced statements EXCEPT your allegations about Machado, reported by VenAnalysis. Do you really expect anyone with "dos dedos frente a la cara" to accept the interpretation of a photo and statement from a source that highly biased in favor of Chavez? Sandy 18:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was from National Catholic Reporter please don't obfusticate Venanalysis archived it, These were your changes to Sumate talk page -> [27] with this summary: Per WP:BLP, remove pooly-sourced allegations against Machado from talk page)You obviously agreed with the policy because it was MCM, so why do you disagree with its application with re: to Chavez? is it bias on your part? This is the source against MCM notice it is from National Catholic Reporter and Ven Analysis only added an image as claimed by them.[28]Flanker 18:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record it was me that wrote that paragraph and it is me saying that I support its removal, if I am to write critiscicm of Maria Corina Machado I would have to PARAPHRASE exactly what was said in the article linked, no creative liberty to indulge on my part.Flanker 18:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Since there haven't been any unsourced allegations since I've been working on the article, your point is moot. This whole scenario is concocted: much ado about nothing. The most hilaroius point to all of this is that there IS an old, unsourced allegation against Chavez (I think it's tagged in Personal life) that Flanker didn't remove. Apparently, Chavez's marital and extra-marital affairs don't matter, as long as we don't criticize his [ removed per wp:blp by JRSP 18:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)], domestic policy, human rights, and other affairs.

My proposal is to revert THIS article to pre-summary version, and work from there. And, I don't propose that we come to any consensus until other editors have weighed in. You all are a bit too anxious to remove Criticism, via any means possible. THIS article is unbalanced, because my good faith effort at removing the Criticism was abused of. Go back to when this article was balanced, and rebuild the daughter articles from there, cutting equally from the top and the bottom of this article. Sandy 18:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

My proposal is to revert THIS article to pre-summary version, and work from there. Well, I will bluntly tell you that I oppose your proposal, as it would have the effect of enlarging mainly the criticism section only. You say that we "are a bit too anxious to remove Criticism, via any means possible," but I could just as easily say that you are a bit too anxious to insert criticism, via any means possible. So, really, accusations of POV hiding/pushing are futile, because we could sling accusations back and forth forever. If I am pushing for the summarisation of anything, it is of BOTH supporters' and critics' claims.

Go back to when this article was balanced, and rebuild the daughter articles from there, cutting equally from the top and the bottom of this article. Once again, I don't think the article as a whole needs to be summarised. Also, your idea of balance is skewed, since the "balanced" article was chock full of criticism without any praise. Your suggestion that the entire article was praise just doesn't cut it.

--WGee 18:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with all of your statements, and suggest that my good faith edits at entirely eliminating most of the criticism from this article show that your perception is skewed. I am proposing that we aim for a balanced, encyclopedic entry, and that we no longer have a good starting point. Sandy 19:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, the article is not "unbalanced" and it does not need to be summarized. I think that assertion is stemming from your imagination, as a result of your passionate feelings on the subject. I suggest you take a break from editing this article, so that the page history can stabilize. 172 | Talk 18:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

So, 172, pops in again to opine without apparently looking at the history, to realize I've scarcely been editing or participating since my house was struck by lightening. Sandy 19:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your proposals. I have just browsed the WP:BLP talk page in order to get some clues on its implementation, specially on the definition of "doubtious source". Nothing found, the only thing I grasped is that BLP used to be a guideline and was upgraded to policy just a few days ago. Perhaps the outcome of this very interesting debate will set a precedent on how to implement the policy. JRSP 20:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting no wonder I missed it, I guess I agree with this admin:

I agree. BLP is important both in protecting us from liability, and in preventing WP from being used as a tool to wage private vendettas. It needs the status of policy. Guettarda 16:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Flanker 20:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. we must learn from our mistakes. BTW the banner should only be used on talk pages to avoid these "deletion shootings", also putting the banner on the main article looks like a cover for vandalism. I think that Flanker's idea of tagging unproven negative statements with something like "I personally believe" helps a lot JRSP 20:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Poll: Re-assess the neutrality of article Hugo Chavez

In utmost detail please explain why the NPOV tag should remain, provide specifics and an unbiased assesment as to why it should remain, if not vote remove. The poll will be open for 5 days so as to not rush a decision.

Weak keep Since I asked the question it is my default answer. Not against consensus.Flanker 19:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criticism

Please read. As I read it, Criticism was never supposed to have been relegated to a marginal section at the bottom of the article anyway. The criticism should be woven into the text, maintaining a good flow of the prose, and in proportion. (Proportionality presents a problem in some sections, since no one yet has been able to explain Chavez's domestic and economic policies, but we can't leave out criticism just because no one is able to articulate his policies.) Since WGee, Flanker, and 172 consistently argue that the article length is fine, there's no reason not to be able to accomplish this according to policy.

The argument that was made in the AfD was that it was not a POV split, as it was done for length, and the AfD was voted down. (Please note the editors who mentioned the verbosity of the article.) Since several people here now assert that article length is not a problem, we can conform with Wiki policy on Criticism, and weave it into the text.

A separate issue is Flanker's extreme and dubious intrepretation of WP:BLP, since all of the criticism is well-sourced. If criticism is merged to its rightful place, per policy, it looks like we're going to be subject to Flanker's reverts, since his interpretation leads him to believe he's exempt from 3RR. Someone needs to find a way to get Flanker to understand what slander and libel are, and how they apply. Otherwise, he's going to be violating 3RR. I have read everything on BLP, and can't find anything to explain Flanker's extreme interpretation of it. Sandy 21:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not extreme Sandy, any more than your interpretation of MCM was, the article of Critisciscm of Hugo Chavez will be rewritten and done with extreme quality of the high standards set. that is this whole saga in a nutshell. It has no relation with article Hugo Chavez and your threats to turn the article into Cristiscism of Hugo Chavez is not viable. Nobody is saying Chavez is a hero to the poor, or a defender of the weak that is the type of adulation that you constantly refer to yet is nowhere to be found. The economy grew by 9% last year and you feel it is adulation, he was democratically elected and you feel is POV in his favor. Until you realize that this article is more or less fine and what is needed are a few minor tweeks we will be editing forever, we cannot work this way you cannot dump every unreferneced/poorly referenced critiscism into the daugher article and expect to feel you compromised, they only reason you felt that was because not much attention was paid to it, but after reading comments like Comments made by Chávez contribute to views his critics hold of him as having dictatorial aims. [29] when you had 0 source to back that heavily POV prose, means that I have to start paying attention there as well. I am sorry Sandy I gave you the benefit of the doubt countless times, even when you started being uncivil to me, but your extreme bias is damaging all of the related articles.Flanker 21:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There's one major problem with your argument, Sandy: Wikipedia:Criticism is not policy. Moreover, in keeping with the tradition at Wikipedia—that is, the tradition of having a seperate article for supporters' and critics' claims—I am against moving all of the criticism from the daughter article to the main article. The rationale for this tradition could be that, when people come to an encyclopedia, they come to research cold, hard facts primarily; they don't come to be immersed in a political debate about Chavez. The criticism should not be woven into the main prose so as not to distract readers with questionable pro- and anti-Chavez statements. -- WGee 16:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The rationale for this tradition could be that, when people come to an encyclopedia, they come to research cold, hard facts primarily; they don't come to be immersed in a political debate about Chavez. The criticism should not be woven into the main prose so as not to distract readers with questionable pro- and anti-Chavez statements.

That is a stunning statement. First, who is inserting "questionable" statements? (Never mind, best not answer that; especially since you haven't followed the edits that have occurred to Sumate.) Second, your claim of "tradition" is a stretch, not borne out by Wikipedia:Criticism. Third, you have just advocated for a POV article, because you don't want to "distract" the reader with having to deal with an NPOV article that tells all sides of the story. That seems to be a striking departure from Wiki pillars. Are you the judge of the cold, hard facts? Sandy 01:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've advocated a POV article by proposing that we keep the criticism in a seperate section and article? Ridiculous. -- WGee 21:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

VenAnalysis "poverty" report

I've removed this sentence for talk page examination:

The World Bank reports a 10% drop in poverty in the last 10 years, from 40% to 30%. (VenezuelaAnalysis (2006), "World Bank: Venezuela decreased poverty", Accessed June 9, 2006.)

• The source is not even VenAnalysis: it is a VenAnalysis translation of an article published in Spanish in Panorama Digital. So, first we are being asked to trust VenAnalysis; second, we are being asked to trust their translation; third, they don't respect copyright (they have a weak attempt at a Fair Use claim), so Wiki shouldn't be linking to them anyway (read WP:EL on external links to copyright violations.)

• Next, never mind that we don't know what the original article said, or if the World Bank said it: the translation indicates a drop in "the number of homes in poverty", not poverty itself, so Flanker's interpretation is wrong on another count.

• My attempts at finding any substantiation for this article have yielded nothing except a lot of reprints of the VenAnalysis translation on various pro-Chavez sites. It seems that Wiki has become part of the Venezuela propoganda machine.

• Next stop, the World Bank itself. I am unable to find any data to substantiate this statement anywhere here. In fact, since they don't even seem to report poverty, perhaps they don't trust the government numbers either.

A statement attached to the World Bank should be sourced to The World Bank; not to a copyvio translation of another article from a biased source. By the way, who owns/runs Panorama Digital? VenAnalysis is not a reliable, unbiased source for information of this nature. Source data to credible organizations, like the World Bank itself.

Examination of all of the VenAnalysis claims needs to be made. VenAnalysis copyright vios of other articles need to be removed, as well. Sandy 21:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Panorama Digital is a Venezuelan regional newspaper in the state of Zulia it is a broadsheet and I can find samples if you like, here is todays cover http://panodi.com/panodi/primera.PDF its website is here http://panodi.com/ Their archives are deeply unstable and in Spanish so I linked to a translation. Please refrain from making a point with the article.Flanker 22:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Flanker, you are not editing with neutrality and objectivity. I have removed one teensy-tiny sentence from the article, which is demonstrably problematic and needs to be examined, easy to reinsert once you can back it up (since I also provided the ref with it), and you have reinstated it with a statement in the edit summary that is bordering on personal attack. Please stop this kind of disruptive editing. Once again, you appear to be trying to instigate revert wars. I have not made a point: I have removed an unreferenced statement from the article for talk page examination. Sandy 22:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy you are retaliating the article even quotes David Varela, World Bank representative in Venezuela. It is a WP:RS and says exactly what is in the prose, just because you do not believe poverty dropped is not grounds for removal from the article. Please calm down and approach this with a lighter head.Flanker 22:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Find it for me, from a reliable source, in his original words. And explain why the World Bank data doesn't show the same. And, if you make another accusation that I am retaliating, vandalizing, not calm (we've talked about that before, remember) or any other such statement, I will not again be able to assume that you are not attacking my character or good faith. Sandy 22:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok here it is [30] yes yes I know biased but it nevertheless is, as for world bank data not showing the same, you have not shown a contradiction, you linked to the world bank website but that was it.Flanker 23:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you reading? You just gave me the same source I gave above, from the article, and which is a translation, their interpretation, a copyright violation, and doesn't back up the statement even if the translation is correct. Where is the World Bank data on the World Bank website? Sandy 23:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If I don't give you a translation you will say spanish sources are not allowed, it is your interpretation that it was their interpretation, copyright violation may not be the case you do not know if they reached a republishing deal with panorama, it does back up the statement just like every other WP:RS Backs up the statement.Flanker 00:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

*The source is not even VenAnalysis: it is a VenAnalysis translation of an article published in Spanish in Panorama Digital. So, first we are being asked to trust VenAnalysis; second, we are being asked to trust their translation; third, they don't respect copyright (they have a weak attempt at a Fair Use claim), so Wiki shouldn't be linking to them anyway (read WP:EL on external links to copyright violations.)

• First, read Wikipedia:Citing sources, Sandy. The relevant heading reads "Intermediate sources: Say where you got it."[31] Secondly, you are not in a position to unilaterally declare whether or not a Fair Use claim is valid. -- WGee 17:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Until this source is verified by either the primary source (i.e. the World Bank), or another intermediate source, perhaps we should insert the {{Check}} tag next to the statement. Alternatively, we could change the statement to reflect only the quote from the World Bank ("The statistical evidence that we have compiled shows that from 1995 to 2005 the number of homes under the poverty line has decreased.") and omit the actual statistics themselves, since their truthfulness is questioned. -- WGee 17:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of tagging the article when an alternative can be found. Flanker wants to illuminate poverty and unemployment. There must be a reliable source which makes the same points, in English, since these are such standard measures. We don't need to be hung on a specific source or specific wording, and the World Bank claim is problematic, since their website doesn't show same, and we can't locate the original article. Sandy 18:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have with this is that it takes what appears to me to be a general statement made during a meeting, and twisting it to state it as fact, out of context, and as statistical data w/ exact figures, both by the news report and wikipedia. Whatever he actually said to The organization said that the number of homes in poverty decreased from more than 40% to 30% to The World Bank reports a 10% drop in poverty in the last 10 years, from 40% to 30%. Maybe the numbers really are 40.1% to 32.4% and everyone rounded as they saw fit. But who knows? Nobody can back this statement up with real numbers. Spaceriqui 20:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

More on poverty numbers

Another statement which requires closer examination:

Overall, since the start of his presidency, government statistics indicate a 6.9% drop in official unemployment (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica.(INE, April 2006) Globales de Fuerza de Trabajo. Retrieved 13 Jun 2006.) and a 6% drop in the rate of poverty.(Weisbrot, M., Sandoval, L., and Rosnick, D. (2006), "Poverty Rates In Venezuela: Getting The Numbers Right", Center for Economic and Policy Research, Accessed May 31, 2006.)

• On the 6.9% in official unemployment since the start of his presidency, Flanker provides a link to a page in Spanish (in violation of Wiki policies, see WP:EL) that show employment statistics from April 2006 to June 2006. Nowhere on that page do I see any mention of statistics since the start of Chavez's presidency. Wiki readers are being asked to "take our word for it" on these sources, but closer examination reveals they may not represent what they say they do. We need English-language reliable sources referencing statements, per Wiki policies, so that we are not put in the position of translating and interpreting. If a neutral person can find the 6.9% drop since the start of his presidency, please point it out to me. In general, we shouldn't be asking readers to guess, translate, or interpret.

Oy I had the one from Jan 1999 but you deleted like a month ago remember? so now spanish sources are not allowed? You do know that Venezuela's government releases data in spanish? and that is the official site of the government of Venezuela? besides the CEPR link translates it for you, but you are against them as well.Flanker 23:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy evidently has yet to review WP:RS, which clearly states:

". . .foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, subject to the same criteria as English-language sources. . . . Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation." [32]

Thus, foreign-language sources and translations by Wikipedia editors are acceptable when no English-language equivalent exists, as long as the foreign-language sources are available for everyone to verify, which they are. Remember, Sandy, that WP:EL does not govern the use of references.

--WGee 18:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

As you said: acceptable when no English-language equivalent exists. We are discussing standard economic data here. And, in the case of the third-hand info, we aren't even given access to the original Spanish version. Sandy 18:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If a neutral person can find the 6.9% drop since the start of his presidency, please point it out to me. In general, we shouldn't be asking readers to guess, translate, or interpret. Erm, you lambast Flanker and I for not trusting your interpretation of the Foreign Affairs article, yet here you are not trusting Flanker's interpretation of Spanish sources. I suppose Flanker and I should scold you for assuming bad faith. -- WGee 18:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

English language sources can be found, we are being asked to accept third-party information, and the data has yet to have been supported by any other soruce. Where am I "lambasting Flanker" ? We need English-language sources for standard economic measures. Sandy 18:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, then find the English-language sources; until then, the Spanish source will have to stay. You say "we are being asked to accept [tertiary sources]". I don't understand: you want us to use the secondary source (Panorama Digital), which is in Spanish, rather than the tertiary source (Venezuelanalysis), which is the English-language equivalent, yet you don't want us to use foreign-language sources? You've put us in one hell of a quagmire. -- WGee 19:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• On the 6% drop in the rate of poverty, while the data appears to be substantiated by the article, we are again asked to trust a secondary source, CEPR, a pro-Chavez [33] liberal think tank.[34] These statements are not referenced to independent, unbiased sources, although many sources of economic data are available. Interestingly, the trend on this article has been to *reject* any references from "think tanks" unless they happen to support Chavez. The double standard needs to stop. IF CEPR and Weisbrot are sources, so are other think tanks. Sandy 22:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I never said other think tanks are not WP:RS Please by all means find them and put what they say that adheres to WP:BLP and prefereably neutral prose.Flanker 23:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I propose we accept WGee's compromise, say exactly what the source quotes rather than the figures it does not quote, I only put the reference and the prose in the first place to counterbalance the not well researched accusation that the government is cooking the books, with an independant assesment.Flanker 19:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Original research

From 2004 to the first quarter of 2006, non-petroleum sectors of the economy have shown growth rates consistently greater than 10%. (El Universal (2006) Movimiento del producto interno bruto. Retrieved 25 Jun 2006.)

The source for this statement is to a JPEG table in Spanish, and there is no text backing up the statement. Besides that it is barely legible, we can't ask Wiki readers to interpret this table, or its origin: that amounts to original research. There are numerous sources of obtaining accurate economic information about Venezuela: these are not quality references, and we shouldn't be using them. It is not hard to source economic data in English, per WP:EL. Sandy 23:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy you are putting me on catch-22 if I give you a spanish source from an oposition newspaper you claim it is not allowed because it is in spanish, if I give you an english source from a favorable think tank you claim it is not allowed either because it is biased. neither of those violate WP:RS So what is it that you really want?Flanker 23:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not the one claiming "think tanks" aren't allowed. Further, we are not the only ones reading these articles, and there is no reason not to provide Wiki readership with the best possible sources. There may be some things that can only be adequately sourced in Spanish (the Venezuelan Constitution, for example) and I have not objected to your Spanish-language sources in cases where nothing better may be available, but economic data in English is not hard to come by. Further, you are putting us in the position of accepting your interpretations of data and reports, and even for someone like me who speaks Spanish, your sources aren't referencing your statements. Sandy 23:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem with a source in Spanish? The Nov 2002 "Aló" was in Spanish too. JRSP 23:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

All of Chavez's speeches are in Spanish, too. That's the language he speaks. But reliable economic data is available in English, and there's no reason not to use it. I can understand using Spanish when there is no other choice. Sandy 00:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I gave you two links in English Sandy, CEPR explains what government data means and the World Bank through Panorama/Venanalysis show the result of their investigation into poverty, you refuse to accept any of them. I put the governments official statistics from their official website, but since it is in spanish it is not allowed... Frankly I don't know where this is leading. Flanker 00:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You have given us a VenAnalysis translation of what Panorama allegedly said that the World Bank allegedly said, although there is no such data on the World Bank website. This is third-hand information, interestingly not validated on the World Bank site (unless someone else can locate it there: I couldn't). In light of situations like this, we simply must use better sources. Sandy 00:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Most articles are second-hand by your definition, the only reason this is just one step more is because it is a translation and Panorama does not archive stories at all.Flanker 01:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it is one step further because it's a translation from a biased source, and because the data is curiously absent from the World Bank website. If the data is reliable, it shouldn't be that hard to find in an English-language source. Sandy 02:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Evidently is not that easy, you saw the site yourself trying to find it. You are not accusing the site of bias Sandy you are (this is not a personal attack) accusing them of plagirizing a number of things most importantly the head of the World Bank in Venezuela, don't you think they would get into legal/reputation trouble if they did? Verifiability is nothing more than passing off the buck. Flanker 02:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

For gosh sakes, Flanker, I'm not accusing anyone of anything. We are asking Wiki readers to "take our word for it", when even *we* can't verify the information. You don't *have* to have the data for a given economic indicator as quoted by a specific magazine. If you want to show that poverty has dropped, or unemployment has dropped, or any other economic indicator, you can find something equivalent somewhere in English, and then no one has to rely on a translation of a document whose original can't be found, giving data that is absent from the World Bank's website. We've gone a bit over the top in accepting Spanish-language sources here, just because some of us can read them and vouch that they say what they're supposed to say. It's still not good Wiki policy, and in this case, we can't vouch for this data. We need reliable sources for numbers. Sandy 02:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to show that poverty has dropped, or unemployment has dropped, or any other economic indicator, you can find something equivalent somewhere in English. . . — Can we in this case? No. The fact that you are unable to locate the said data in English does not mean that Venezuelanalysis created that data for its own purposes. Can you find any contradictory World Bank statistics to back up your claim that Venalysis has fabricated the data? -- WGee 19:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth, WGee. Where have I said the data was fabricated? I've simply asked that statements here be referenced to valid reliable sources so that Wiki readers can verify sources. I haven't looked for the data beyond World Bank; I didn't add the content. Sandy 01:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

OK one more time, we can and evidently do verify both poverty and unemployment from official government sources directly, obviously they are going to be in spanish, so we move up one level in the case of Poverty and link to CEPR a WP:RS which has government data AND an explanation in english of what it means (yes I know you think they are biased). The World Bank data is the only one that we cannot find on their website but it was reported by a WP:RS and translated by a WP:RS, so there is no reason to remove it. The economist also reports that poverty figures are down (using government figures), just with their negative spin that it is not enough.

You said before that you do not trust government figures and claim the same most oposition opinionist claim that the government changed the rulestick but CEPR, and the Economist do believe in government figures And there have been independant pollsters like Datanalysis (deeply oposition) and Datos (evenhanded) that report stuff like this: "Some social scientists distrust the figures. But they may be accurate. There was a 43% rise in income for social class E [the poorest] in 2005, and 18% for class C,” says Luis Vicente León, of Datanálisis, a polling firm. Since Mr Chávez came to power, class E “has practically doubled its consumption,” adds Armando Barrios, an economist at IESA, a business school.:

So there are two questions on the table here, Did poverty drop? yes. Should it be added/correctly referenced? yes. Flanker

It seems as though Sandy is on a mission to refute every secondary source that reports something incompatible with his anti-Chavez POV. Even if we find a primary source that indicates something good under Chavez, Sandy criticizes our interpretation of it or claims that the very act of interpreting a source is original research. The only way Sandy will accept a positive economic indicator is if it comes from an anti-Chavez source, like The Economist; all other economic statistics are tainted and invalid. You claim that statistics from Venezuelanalysis and CEPR, for instance, are skewed because the organizations are biased, but couldn't I claim the same about The Economist? Thus, please don't accuse me and Flanker of enforcing double standards when you do things like this. -- WGee 18:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If this weren't so laughable, I'd come up with a response. Neither of you have yet explained why the data is not on the World Bank site, and that is a legitimate question. By the way, have you checked the Economist for the data which needs a reference? Sandy 18:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, the suggestion that the act of interpreting sources is orignal research is ludicrous. All sources in Wikipedia, unless they are direct quotes, are interpreted. The idea is that any skewed interpretations will be exposed if all editors have access to the references. Some secondary sources (e.g. the table of hard economic data in question) may require more interpretation on the part of the editor, but they are nonetheless legitimate per WP:RS, as long as they are made available for all editors to interpret independently. Furthermore, I'm sorry if you find the table barely legible, Sandy, but our use of sources is not limited by your monitor's resolution. -- WGee 19:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ironic too that it is just a table not a spanish poem/novel, one that can be easily seen and interpreted by english speakers if you use the browser tool that de-truncates the image (if your monitor resolution is that low), I would remove the right hand graph but then it would be hosted outside ElUniversal negating it as a Reliable source... So again catch 22 the only possible solution is to A) let the user use his browser. B) cut out the righthand graph make into a square and host it in wikipedia.

Then again the watermark of El Universal would be on the righthand side and it would be a copyright violation. So we have gone from "go to the library and check" to now: not everybody knows about de-truncation and how to use the lower righthand side icon on the image in MS explorer. The bar is raised for negative comments but at least there is policy behind that.Flanker 20:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW I experimented with the screen's resolution of 800x600 pixels, the image is truncated but the data is discernable. 1024x768 is perfectly fine and is not truncated at all. The correct terminology is image scaling. Flanker 20:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, Flanker. This is quite a ridiculous situation. -- WGee 20:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

And regarding the use of Venezuelanalysis as a tertiary source to verify poverty figures, would you stop complaining if we were to use Panorama Digital, the secondary source, to verify thee statistics? Or would you only settle for the primary source, even when Wikipedia states that secondary sources are preferred (Statistics compiled by an authoritative agency are considered primary sources. In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material. [35]? Unless you believe that Panorama Digital has made up the data and intentionally misquoted the World Bank, you have no right to lobby for the exlcusion of the source. -- WGee 20:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. You said, Sandy, that "On the 6% drop in the rate of poverty, while the data appears to be substantiated by the article, we are again asked to trust a secondary source, CEPR, a pro-Chavez liberal think tank. These statements are not referenced to independent, unbiased sources, although many sources of economic data are available." Does that mean we should also nullify the economic data reported by The Economist? And in your statement "we are again asked to trust a secondary source," you seem to question the very use of secondary sources, even though they are the essence of Wikipedia. Is it that you want primary sources for economic indicators that are favourable to Chavez, yet only secondary sources for negative material? -- WGee 20:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Summarizing, to cut through all the distraction. We have one statement that refers to a drop since the start of Chavez's term, but the reference actually shows only 3 months' worth of data (April to June 2006). We have one statement that refers to the World Bank, but the data can't be found on the World Bank website or anywhere else. And we reference a site with fairly obvious problems with Fair Use, but we're supposed to trust their third hand report of a translation of another report, whose data can't be substantiated at the *primary* source. All of this for standard economic data that should be easily available from reliable sources. If unemployment and poverty dropped, the data won't be hard to find. All of this fuss is making me wonder if the data might be wrong after all; it would surely be quicker just to find another source. Sandy 00:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes Sandy, the data is wrong because wikipedia is debating it :D. Look you (or somebody with a great interest in summarizing) deleted the Jan 1999 unemployment link, if you go WAY back on the archives [36] (almost 500 edits back wow) you will see it there, as a matter of fact I am adding it right now. The claim that you cannot find the information in the World Bank is not really valid since the World Bank may or may not publish that data on their website to begin with, and third copyright restrictions is also highly debatable, do you know if they asked for the rights to republish the information?Flanker 02:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

We have one statement that refers to a drop since the start of Chavez's term, but the reference actually shows only 3 months' worth of data (April to June 2006).

Then allow Flanker to add the pertinent source, which you apparantly removed previously.

We have one statement that refers to the World Bank, but the data can't be found on the World Bank website or anywhere else.

You are assuming that the World Bank's statements were published on the Internet. In fact, "These statements were made during consultations [between the government and the World Bank]," so I doubt the World Bank would have them published on its site, and media attendance may have been scarce. Once again, are you claiming that the World Bank statistics reported by Panorama Digital are false, that this successful, independent news agency fabricated the statistics and invented the World Bank statement at the behest of the Chavez administration? If this is your claim (as I can see no other reason for you so stridently opposing the source), it is outlandish, incredible, and without merit.

And we reference a cite with fairly obvious problems with Fair Use, but we're supposed to trust their third hand report of a translation of another report, whose data can't be substantiated at the *primary* source.

According to Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

". . .the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

The law is quite explicit.

--WGee 02:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

May I add that Panorama is privately owned paper dating back a century I believe, as a matter of fact they and Ultimas Noticias are the only private major circulation daily broadsheets whose editorial lines and article writing is not against the government.Flanker 03:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use

As to VenAnalysis and Fair Use, please explain to me how it can ever be Fair Use to include a full copy of a report that is only available for a fee from the copyright holder? (Ellner, Steve. (North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA), 17 Oct 2005). "Venezuela’s “Demonstration Effect”: Defying Globalization’s Logic". VenezuelaAnalysis.) I don't know how you can justify Fair Use when revenues are clearly being taken from the copyright holder. WP:EL says not to link to sources that violate copyright. It appears that VenAnalysis may be violating Fair Use. You aren't seriously comparing these kinds of sources to The Economist, are you? Let's start using primary sources, not third hand reports and sketchy jpegs. Sandy 00:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

And in case anyone doesn't see the reason to question our sources, this article had Chavez with a Master's degree, and no one yet has been able to substantiate that claim. I asked the question a month ago (see first item on talk page) (see archived talk page), and no one has answered yet. Sandy 01:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This is getting close to nitpicking, how do you know the website is the holder of the copyright? I mean the author and the website are not the same either, how do you know the copyright holder did not grant the VenAnalysis publishing rights? As for the Economist and sketchy jpegs (from an deeply oposition daily newspaper no less), you are right they are not the same, Venanalysis and yes even the El Universal are sources embedded in Venezuelan society the authors and publishers live in Venezuela, the Economist is in London and offers the most superficial mainstream and eyerolling assesment I come accross, only US papers do a worse job at being substantial, it feels like they are peeking from a helicopter outside the maritme borders...Flanker 02:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Flanker, Wikipedia server's reside in the USA and are subject to US laws. VenAnalysis, on at least two occasions I've found so far, claims Fair Use for a full copy of content which is ONLY available for a fee. You may not understand Fair Use, but that is as clear as a violation can get. There is NO indication from VenAnalysis on those pages that they have been granted rights to that content: they claim Fair Use, but if you click on the original links, you find it is content only available for a fee. This takes revenue from the copyright holder, which violates the principle of Fair Use. Further, when another site knowingly links to copyright violations – after it has been brought to their attention – that website becomes liable. You have been notified: please stop linking to what appear to be very clear copyvios. If you want to link to them, go somewhere on Wiki and get an opinion that says it's OK to link to a site which claims Fair Use to complete copies of paid content. Just because those sites may not have pursued their copyright protection with VenAnalysis does not make it OK for Wiki to knowingly violate copyright, and Wiki is our concern here. Thank you, Sandy 14:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 allows for the reproduction of copyrighted work (including for-profit material, obviously) for the purpose of news reporting. So I still dispute the existence of any copyright violation and will continue to support the use of the source. -- WGee 20:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, Flanker. After lobbying for greater Venezuelan involvement some time ago, saying that a Venezuelan perspective would benefit the article, it's quite intriguing that Sandy has rejected most Venezuelan sources.

I don't know how you can justify Fair Use when revenues are clearly being taken from the copyright holder. What revenues are being taken from the copyright holder? Please explain. Also, according to Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 (see my last comment in the above thread), Venezuelanalysis is operating within the parameters of US copyright law. I'm surprised that you're willing to go so far as to incite a debate about U.S. copyright law just to exlude favourable poverty statistics from the article.

You aren't seriously comparing these kinds of sources to The Economist, are you? Yes, I am. If biased The Economist is able to accurately report economic statistics from primary sources, then so is biased Venezuelanalysis.

-- WGee 03:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's start using primary sources, not third hand reports and sketchy jpegs. What an outrageous suggestion from someone who has made extensive use of secondary sources to criticize Chavez. Also, you're suggesting that we disregard Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which states: "Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material." -- WGee 03:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk page archive

The talk page is past 300KB. Unless anyone disagrees, I'd like to archive TOC items 1 - 30, carrying forward the To DO and POV lists. The consensus we previously enjoyed might as well go to archives. Sandy 01:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Done. Sandy 14:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with this.Flanker 02:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree too. JRSP 03:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree. -- WGee 04:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the misinterpretation here of BLP

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Misinterpretation of BLP

Misinterpretation of BLP

What is going to be the process for reporting misinterpretation or abuse of WP:BLP? Since editors employing it are exempt from 3RR, where will removal of material referenced to reliable sources be reported?

I understand the necessity of aggressively combatting unsourced innuendo and negative criticism about living persons, but this policy is being used to remove text, referenced to reliable sources, from Criticism of Hugo Chávez. It is impossible to re-add referenced text without engaging in a revert war, since the editors deleting the text are convinced they are exempt from 3RR.

Here are some short examples:

A program called "Mission Identity", to fast track voter registration of immigrants to Venezuela — including Chávez supporters benefiting from his subsidies — has been put in place prior to the upcoming 2006 presidential elections.

Bronstein, H. (June 14, 2006), "Colombians in Venezuela thank Chavez for new life". Washington Post, Accessed 22 June 2006. (An online copy can be found here.)

Human rights organization Amnesty International has catalogued a number of human rights violations under Chávez.

Amnesty International. (AI, 2005). "AI Summary Report 2005: Venezuela". Retrieved 01 Nov 2005.

Amnesty International reports that Venezuela lacks an independent and impartial judiciary, and the U.S. State Department says there is unchecked concentration of power in the executive and the legal system.

Amnesty International (2006), "AI Report 2006: Venezuela". Accessed 22 June 2006.

U.S. Department of State (December 1, 2005). "The State of Democracy in Venezuela". Accessed 18 June 2006.

So, where are questions about the applicability of WP:BLP raised, and where does one take 3RR issues if the editors believe they are exempt from 3RR? Strong application of this policy is unquestionably necessary; but the potential for abuse in order to stifle referenced criticism is also a problem. Can the wording be tightened up to make it clear that text referenced to reliable sources is not subject to 3RR, and will there be a means of addressing misinterpretation of WP:BLP? Sandy 15:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR exception on BPL refers to criticism that is "unsourced or poorly sourced". The examples you provided do not fall within the scope of that exception. Note that the first example needs attribution, otherwise it reads as an assertion of fact. You could NPOV that as follows:

According to an a newspaper article that appeared in The Washington Post, a program called "Mission Identity", to fast track voter registration of immigrants to Venezuela — including Chávez supporters benefiting from his subsidies — has been put in place prior to the upcoming 2006 presidential elections.]

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the help and suggestions. But, I still have the question: if the editor persists in reverting, and believes he is exempt from 3RR, where does it get reported? At 3RR? I can see this becoming a tricky policy question, if editors claim exemption from 3RR. Sandy 16:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Report at WP:ANI/3RR, or pursue the actions outlined in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. Sandy 16:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, it has been pointed out to me that "blanking" was not the correct term, and I apologize for using that word incorrectly. Apparently "blanking" is only used to describe vandalism, where what Flanker and JRSP have done was merely inappropriate removal of referenced text. I did not know that meaning of "blanking", and I apologize for any unintended implications. Seems the bounds were overstepped here in deleting text references to *very* reliable sources (unlike the Machado claims). Sandy 04:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok so you got the opinion of a single admin... Where does it say that you can editorialize in the prose by just putting a link to a RS? Surely you understand that poor referencing is far more comprehensive than just slapping a link to CNN and writing what you want, you have to say exactly what the article states, check the talk page of that article for details. Progress has been made to put the article up to standards of WP:BLP.Flanker 05:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a very simple point here: there was never a violation of BLP (except your entries about Machado). You went beyond the bounds of WP:BLP, and then accused me in an edit summary of vandalism, when I removed "one little sentence" to the talk page for discussion. The exemption to 3RR does not apply to referenced text, so please refrain from instigating revert wars. This kind of editing has impeded progress on this article for weeks, as it sets us back every time you do it. Now, rather than moving forward on completing our work, we've lost days to this silliness, and still have to reconstruct what you destructed. Consider using the talk page first, before taking extreme measures. It should be possible to work via consensus. Sandy 13:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Further, the recent addition to Sumate is not within WP:BLP. Slapping up a published list, with absolutely no context or journalistic reporting, is marginal at best. Unlike the extreme measures you prefer, I will allow some time for you and JRSP to correct that, before removing it. Please try to accord the same respect to your fellow editors, so that we need not lose so much time in these edit and revert wars. Thank you, Sandy 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You have failed to establish why an oposition Venezuelan newspaper reporting the list under a clear title of LISTADO DE LOS FIRMANTES DEL DECRETO DE PEDRO CARMONA ESTANGA is not allowed per WP:BLP this is getting beyond ridiculous, your attempts to shield MCM from ANY sort of critiscism is too much (at least I agree that well constructed critiscism of Chavez is clearly allowed and encouraged), I will actually add another link to make a point of her signature. As for me acting unilaterally that is false if anything this talk page is evidence that I work strongly on concensus even delaying my contributions for weeks or months, on the other hand your contributions make it in quickly, this is not your article Sandy other people contribute and spend their free time as well.Flanker 18:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Could we get a definitive word on what is a copyright violation?

Seriously wikipedia is not here to superficially investigate what is and what is not a copyright violation, none of us here have any background in knowing what re-publishing agreement between Venanalysis and NACLA or Steve Ellner. What next no more AP/Reuters wires? I question the encyclopedic, policy, legal and common sense value of this decision.Flanker 20:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright having read to the bottom it states that it is reprinting it on the grounds of fair use not a republishing agreement.

Fair use notice of copyrighted material:

This site contains some copyrighted material that in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of politics, human rights, the economy, democracy, and social justice issues related to Venezuela. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

I've read the pertinent law and have concluded the Venezuelanalysis has not violated U.S. copyright law. But really, I have no interest in participating in a quasi-tribunal to judge the legality of the article; after all, I'm here to write an encyclopedia, not to refine my legal skills. I believe this whole copyright issue is a red herring. -- WGee 21:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It certainly is my interpretation as well.Flanker 01:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Foreign policy section and article need updating

Foreign policy of Hugo Chávez has to be updated. Important elements missing: Venezuela looking for a seat in the UN Security Council and recent trips (Africa summit and Belarus-Russia-Qatar-Iran tour). Also we need to rewrite the summary in the main article JRSP 08:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Another JRSP deletion

Storing this here (another of JRSP's deletions) in the name of BLP [37]:

Chávez took over the Venezuelan airwaves several times in the early afternoon in what is termed a cadena, or a commandeering of the media airwaves to broadcast public announcements, asking protesters to return to their homes, playing lengthy pre-recorded discourses, and attempting to block coverage of the ensuing violence.

JRSP, you might consider a good faith effort to locate the references before deconstructing an article of information that shouldn't be that hard to reference.

Sandy 12:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"Responsibility for justifying controversial claims rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim". WP:BLP official policy quoted by JRSP 12:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and we all have the burden of editing with good faith. As you know, most of the text of this article predates any of the current editors here, so you could show some good faith (with respect to your tendency to delete well-referenced criticism of Chavez) by attempting to reference statements about incidents which received ample publicity rather than removing them. Why you would think that statement is controversial is a mystery to me. Sandy 13:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales and WP:BLP demand that editors remove negative unsourced material on sight; so JRSP was only fulfilling his obligations as an editor. Even if he were to go out of his way to attempt to reference the sketchy statement, he would do so after removing it, not before. JRSP is therefore exonerated, in my opinion. -- WGee 04:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez name

What is Hugo Chavez name? The article says "Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias", but I have repeatedly heard his name in the press as "Hugo Cesar Chavez".

Then it is a mistake. --Espazolano 16:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Some gringo copy editor probably got Hugo Chavez and Cesar Chavez confused:) HieronyMouse 03:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources on Israeli situation

I have sources in several places: gathering them here.

• Israel is not informed about Venezuela's plans to break off relations. El Universal (August 9, 2006).

• Haaretz.com. ADL: Chavez comparison of IDF and Hitler is outrageous. Haaretz service (August 8, 2006).

• Israel recalls Caracas ambassador in Chavez protest. Reuters (August 7, 2006).

Sandy 13:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Added refs, Sandy 18:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It does not need a whole subsection, specifically if it is wholy biased against given the whole out of context "crucified christ" subquote. I will condense the saga.Flanker 00:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It does need a whole sub-section, the conflict is a top news story, Chavez's stance on it is a top news story, and it will eventually be only one part of his anti-America, pro-Arab foreign policy push in 2006. Sandy 00:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No it does not, frankly I disagree that that we should follow what the mainstream press says, the Robertson fiasco was the biggest news on Chavez ever but it hardly made a blip on the local radar aside from US media reaction, so we gave it here a passing mention, this article should strive to avoid anglo-saxon regional bias.Flanker 00:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It is quite obtuse to think that the current Israeli-Hiz conflict is not major news, or that Chavez's recent tour and reaction to his statements and stances are not headlines. Please don't start disruptive editing. Discuss changes and come to consensus before making unilateral changes. As already explained to you several times, the Pat Robertson news made headlines not because of Chavez, but because of Robertson. Sandy 00:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Following WP:BLP Is not disruptive editing, I made it all concise this is an article about Hugo Chavez and not a summary of the Miami Herald article, Its relevancy is highly debatable in itself. BTW here is the relevant policy.

" The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics in case you represent a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

Criticism should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association."

The Hezbollah favorable reaction clearly falls into the second bolded part. Flanker 00:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Updated economic data

Don't have time to get to this yet, updated GDP and inflation, here's ref:

Imported goods are cheaper, BCV acknowledges. El Universal (August 9, 2006).

Sandy 13:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Done, Sandy 18:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it means what you think it means I propose we eliminate the reference it has everything to do with currency exchange and almost nothing to do with inflation (although there is a correlation) for more info please see this article Purchasing power parity. If you want to write a sentence or two about currency pegs and CADIVI there is certainly a much better way, I still left it because it does not violate policy and await consensus.Flanker 01:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyediting

SF, Wiki is an encyclopedia. If you can't introduce chcanges without extensive and basic copyediting needs (spelling and punctuation), then please propose your changes first on the talk page, so as not to cause additional work for other editors. You do not own the article, and unilateral editing, which requires extensive copyediting, is disruptive. Sandy 01:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I made changes based on WP:BLP meaning that the changes are aggressive if it does not meet the specific criteria, spelling is secondary (one could argue tertiary). It is already outlined above. I do not own the article and as a matter of fact have made little to no edits in weeks, please aproach the subject with a neutral stance.Flanker 01:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The quality of the information (in and of itself) is preponderant, not the quality of the prose. Likewise, one does not have to be perfectly proficient in the English language to unilaterally make edits. And copy-editing, extensive or not, is not "disruptive"; rather, it is an essential process, even among native speakers of English. (I have encountered numerous grammatical, syntactical, and semantical errors committed by native speakers of English in this article.) If you don't like the prospect of having to copy-edit, then you might consider spending your time somewhere other than an open content encyclopedia. In addition, I would rather have to rectify spelling mistakes than continuously roll-back and revise partisan content additions. -- WGee 23:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It is also ironic that you're accussing Flanker of asserting ownership over the article while you have been keeping such a watchful eye over it. -- WGee 23:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

About God

The fact that Chavez refers to God, or asks people to pray in his speeches is not noteworthy, as many other politicians do the same thing, for example, G.W.Bush. Nor is it either out of character for Chavez himself-a life long catholic, or socialists in general, practicioners of liberation theology, for example. I have terefore put this sentence back in the section detailing his religious views.Felix-felix 18:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

reasons for GA failure

• At 99 kB, that's not just a little oversized—it's an elephant.
• While many people would consider me to be in the lefwing camp, I know from general knowledge—and readily available information on the Internet—that there's too much controversy over the subject to promulgate an article that expresses little criticism of it. Although criticism is flagged in a general way in the lead, it is not satisfactorily followed up in the body of the article; to top it off, finishing with a cloying pic of him and his family may seem one-sided without further explication of the criticism. I'm unsure whether opposing views need to be mentioned in a number of places and in an explicit subsection. Probably. But at the moment, it's just a little like fancruft. By the way, it's well-written on the clause level: congrats.
• There's an unaddressed update tag.
• I'd be more comfortable with a little more sourcing, particularly in the light of the emotion surrounding the subject.

Tony 02:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with more critiscism is that it would unbalance the article, as it stands now there is little praise within it but lots of critical opinion against. The critiscism section is only a small part of this opinion. Plus it has to adhere to WP:BLP policies that detract from overwhealming the article with crititical opinions. As for critical facts they are welcome within the article but with as little editorializing as possible. (eg increase in crime statistics).Flanker 03:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Expanding on the idea, in order to balance more added critiscical opinion you would need a praise/positive opinion section, if it were to equal in size to critiscism it would need a Praise of Hugo Chavez dauguter article (obviously with the critiscism of the particular praise), both additions I would much rather AVOID. Hugo Chavez is a polarizing figure with strong opinion on both sides I would much rather deal with facts as oposed to what people think of him, plus we are missing THE most important opinion and that is of current day Venezuelans (no polls are mentioned at all).Flanker 03:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

My official stance with the GA debate is neutral, while I think it meets most of the critera it falls short on the stability angle. However I will address a few points:

• According Wikipedia:What is a good article? GA can be of any length.
• The article is uptodate it is just ongoing which is what it meant since neither are mutually exclusive I decided to remove the tag on the 2006 section.
• Is there any specific sourcing that you need? it would be very helpfull in trying to fix the article, perhaps you could add a few Flanker 16:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez is a polarizing figure with strong opinion on both sides I would much rather deal with facts as oposed to what people think of him — Flanker echoes my thoughts exactly: I don't think it's appropriate for an encyclopedia to relay political debate. We should not, in my opinion, be influencing readers' perceptions of the subject by including criticism (or praise) in the article; we should let the readers make their own unbiased inferences. -- WGee 04:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

From coup section, for discussion

This was added by an anon editor: I can't find support for this text in the reference given:

Other sources say that the government demanded the anti-Chavez private media to stop broadcasting the protests because they were "inciting people to violence" , allegedly because they showed only a small part of the scene of pro-Chavez supporters firing, claiming they were firing at unarmed demonstrators and not showing the direction in which they fired.

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=1199 Sandy 14:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"President Chávez stopped privately-owned TV stations transmitting on 11 April at about 4 pm, saying they were "irresponsible," had launched "a campaign of defamation" and were "inciting people to violence." The order to shut them down came shortly after they had refused instructions to broadcast only a speech by the president and had instead split their screens in two, with Chávez speaking on one side and film of the demonstration being repressed on the other. The president had demanded broadcast of his speech just as the crackdown started."

I guess the problem is with "allegedly because they showed only a small part of the scene of pro-Chavez supporters firing, claiming they were firing at unarmed demonstrators and not showing the direction in which they fired."??

Spaceriqui 21:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. Where does that come from? Sandy 22:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Role of the U.S. government in the 2002 coup attempt

I believe you misinterpreted my additions, Sandy, for I was not trying to imply or insinuate anything. All I was trying to do was convey the fact that the United States funded organizations and individuals that were eventually involved in the coup attempt. That is not to imply that the U.S. organized the coup; it is merely to help the readers decipher the situation. I don't understand why this point should be excluded, as it was explicitly mentioned in the press release. -- WGee 01:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The press release states:

"While it is clear that NED, Department of Defense (DOD), and other U.S. assistance programs provided training, institution building, and other support to individuals and organizations understood to be actively involved in the brief ouster of the Chávez government, we found no evidence that this support directly contributed, or was intended to contribute, to that event."

Compare this to my addition: "

Although the U.S. government funded some of the individuals and organizations that partook in the coup, the United States Department of State finds no evidence that ". . .this support directly contributed, or was intended to contribute, to [the coup d'état]."

What is the difference between what I wrote and what the source says? Since I merely paraphrased this U.S. government press release, and incorporated some of it verbatim, what "web of implications" could I have possibly created?

-- WGee 02:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you please explain the reasons for this revision? -- WGee 02:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe you misinterpreted my additions, Sandy ... and what "web of implications" could I have possibly created? The entire paragraph was weaving a web of implications, and was built by contributions from many editors: I did not single out your additions specifically when I made that comment. I'm sure, in retrospect, you can see the problems with the paragraph as it was previously worded?

With respect to the specific sentence you added, examining the original statement in the press release:

While it is clear that NED, Department of Defense (DOD), and other U.S. assistance programs provided training, institution building, and other support to individuals and organizations understood to be actively involved in the brief ouster of the Chávez government, ...

If you read the entire OIG study, you will find they are speaking of organizations and entities which have never been covered in any press articles (at least that I've been able to find). So, by including a *primary source* document statement which is not examined by or published in any secondary sources, the implication that is left with this statement is that either Sumate or the US Government was involved in the coup, since no other potential entities or organizations are mentioned anywhere in this series of articles. I don't see how to fix that, since no secondary sources cover the entities specifically mentioned in the primary source document: in fact, I've never head of some of those organizations. If you can find a way around this that uses reliable sources, and doesn't implicate Sumate or the US Government in the ouster of Chavez, that would be great. The problem I have is that I haven't been able to locate any secondary sources which discuss the entities named in the primary source document, which is exactly why we have to take care when using primary source documents. I can't find a way to put the statement in its proper context, when no secondary sources appear to have discussed the other entities mentioned in primary source document. Sandy 15:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph discusses Chavez's allegations against the United States. Thus, it would not be sensible to discuss the AUC's alleged role in the coup, for instance. If you would like to discuss the possible role of other entities in the coup, feel free to do so in a seperate paragraph. But, at the moment, it seems that the United States is the only suspected perpetrator, or at least the only notable one. -- WGee 03:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, you did weave a web of implications: look at how you titled this section heading. Your section heading implies that you believe the statements mean the US Government was involved in "the coup". I suggest you read the entire study. Sandy 15:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. government admits that it funded some of the organizations and individuals that eventually carried out the coup; thus, the Unites States admits to playing an indirect (allegedly unintentional) role—though a role nonetheless—in the coup, hence my heading. -- WGee 03:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

On an unrelated but similar topic, we have at least three issues now (that I can recall) of inappropriate reliance on primary sources. This offers one example of the problems we could get in to, the second is Flanker's personal interpretations of Datos charts and data with no reliable secondary source commentary or interpretation (I have now added reliable secondary source interpretations of that data), and, in Súmate we have Flanker's introduction of a primary source list, and no reliable secondary source commentary about that list. These are examples that show why WP:RS cautions against using primary sources in the absence of secondary sources examination. We need to stop this introduction of original research and personal interpretations of primary source data. I believe there are several other examples in this article where Flanker has taken primary source data and used them for original research (I can't recall if I already deleted his use of a jpeg chart to back up some statements). Sandy 17:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

About pictures!!!

Putting 2 photos of President Chavez with Argentinian President,but none with his best friend amongst politicians:FIDEL CASTRO......

All the way from Jack Kennedy you americans cant stop to hate Castro and Cuban people.......for almost 50 years........Thats generations and generations of hate filled americans.......No wonder no one dared to put a picture

Hugo Chavez and the politics of oil nationalization

Hugo Chavez atttempted to nationalize Venezuela's oil causing a strong reaction by the United States against his regime because this would have led to the seizing of US owned oil fields.Oil nationalization by oil producing countries has been viewed as a threat to the strategic interests of the United States [38].Comparisions have been made between the US government's reaction to the oil nationalization scheme of Dr.Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran[39].The CIA overthrew Dr.Mossadegh in a CIA operation known as Operation Ajax. There have been claims that the coup against Hugo Chavez in 2002 was CIA engineered just like Operation Ajax [40][41].

Removed from article to talk page for discussion. Besides that it was inserted in the wrong place, uses weasle words, and has no reliable sources, I don't know if there is salvageable content that can be sourced. Sandy 05:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Bravo to Sandy for this edit removing sourceless and blatantly anti-American material.

PainMan 10:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

HUGE task - bot alert

Mets501 ran a bot through all of the Chavez articles, which added accents to Chavez. We've got to make sure that all reference links still work. Sandy 19:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Mets and I checked through everything, and all seems OK: a few images that needing correcting, and I reverted some ref changes. All seems OK, and Mets has fixed his bot for future use. Sandy 20:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Viaduct

Does anyone know the status of the new viaduct for the Caracas-La Guaira highway? Gazpacho 07:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

As of last week, it took my family three hours each way to get to and from Maiquetia. I don't know the current status, but this is yet another glaring omission from this article, which refuses to allow any discussion of anything critical of Chávez. Note that almost nothing has been updated for 2006; since there isn't much news in Chavez's favor in 2006, the owners of the article haven't updated 2006 content. The autopista, Iran, North Korea, Russian arms deals, allegations from Chile of vote buying: all missing. Everything's rosy in Chavezpedia. While Venezuela is enjoying the largest boom ever in petrodollars, giving money away to other countries as if there were no poverty in Venezuela, the main highway to Caracas is in ruins, and this isn't even mentioned in any of the Chávez articles. Sandy 14:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of this article is not to discuss every little project carried out by Venezuelan government officials, and to examine its success or failure. You can certainly highlight Chavez's achievements or lack thereof in a more general way, but it's extraneous in an article about Chavez to analyze every aspect of Venezuelan society. Furthermore, although Wikipedia is not a news wire, the 2006 section appears to be just that, and has the potential to run on forever. -- WGee 19:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of this article is not to discuss every little project carried out by Venezuelan government officials, and to examine its success or failure. WGee, the only possible answer to your response is that it is apparent that you have not been to Venezuela, and do not appreciate the significance of this issue. You describing it as "every little project" is the first clue that you don't understand the significance of Venezuela's capital and major city being cut off from its airport and access to the sea, not to mention the people that Chávez supposedly cares about who must transit that highway every day on their way to work in Caracas. I'm surprised you don't express concern that those workers must spend six hours daily transiting to and from work. That's why it's important that people who praise socialism without seeing or understanding its consequences in Venezuela not exert ownership of a Wiki article. By the way, I'm still waiting for you to object to the "newswire" from the parts of the article that deal with older history, and are currently only bloating the article size, when that history is well summarized in the daughter articles and no longer needed. The older "newswire" items don't seem to bother you. Sandy 19:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

In one statement you have assumed my political ideology, labelled me an "owner" of this article, called me ignorant of the effects of "socialism", and yet still have failed to explain how this infrastructure project is directly pertinent to Chavez. -- WGee 19:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm not sure what the Chavez article should say about this, I have to agree with Sandy that calling the Viaduct #1 replacement a "little project" suggests monumental indifference to facts on the ground. Caracas is Venezuela's largest city and it depends on that highway. Gazpacho 21:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

My phrase "every little project" was used merely for rhetorical effect, to underline the need to avoid mentioning extraneous and excessively specific information in this article; it was not even in reference to this particular transport route. Of course, I have read the Caracas-La Guaira highway article, viewed a map of the motorway, and have read several articles on the issue; I consequently understand its importance to Caracas and area. Nevertheless, I do not think that it's appropriate to attribute this specific infrastructure failure to Chavez. And although this crumbling motorway certainly decreases productivity and poses enourmous incoveniences to workers and vacationers, its impact on Venezuela as a whole should not be overstated. -- WGee 22:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

As the highway article notes, it is POV to attribute the viaduct failure to particularly to Chavez. Gazpacho 19:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

We can certainly expect him to allocate resources to fixing it, considering the money he is giving away to neighbors in his attempt to win a seat on the Security Council. Sandy 19:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

We could criticze equally every president from the 1980's onward for failing to come up with a long term solution of the problem. Better yet, we could criticize them all for failing to develop a sound urban development strategy for Caracas and its surrounding areas, one that doesn't promote congestion and pollution by encouraging the use of personal automobiles. Your singling out of Chavez is irrational. And, to be honest, I am much more concerned about the plight of rural dwellers who live in near absolute poverty than I am for the merely inconvenienced workers who are fortunate enough to have a stable job to which to commute and a means of motorized transportation. -- WGee 20:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That is the problem with Hugo Chavez everything bad is attributed to him and frankly such irrationality should not be added to wikipedia, that is why critiscism has to be well screened. As a native of Caracas I know very well its significance and agree with WGee it is a small relative to a subsection about infrastructure (considering the trocha is finished), if such a subsection is added then the positives as well including multiple metro lines, highways, bridges about to finish etc. There are easily 15 projects.Flanker 03:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What's the trocha? Gazpacho 19:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a nickname for the temporary road link built between the two closed points of the now collapsed bridge, it snakes around the ravine and it is only a road(ie one channel per way), takes 5 mins to cross without traffic (in other words late at night), it was finished in Late Feb of this year, it is only a temporary solution until the new longer viaduct is finished in 07.Flanker 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Economic policy section

This section's overwhelming focus on statistics tells me nothing about Chavez's economic policy. It describes the results of his policies very well, but fails to explain what Chavez did to precipitate this economic success or lack thereof. Thus, the section as it stands now is rather extraneous and is more pertinent to the Economy of Venezuela article. I'm not sure where Flanker is, or if he has quit this article, but some time ago he proposed an explanation of Chavez's economic ideology and overall economic strategy: that would be a good start. -- WGee 19:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the reason there is no coherent explanation of Chavez's economic policy is because one doesn't exist. Anything Flanker might be able to come up with would likely be original research: I've been scouring all the sources I can find, and have located nothing which adequately explains what Chavez thinks he's doing, other than implementing failed socialist policies of giving away the petrodollar boom and pursuing a foreign policy that will guarantee high oil prices. No, it doesn't belong in Economy of Venezuela: Chavez's implementation of socialism is what has destroyed the economy, and the case is made well by the reliable sources that his policies are responsible for the damage to the economy. Sandy 19:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Inflation, GDP, poverty, uemployment, and foreign investment figures do not belong in the Economy of Venezuela article? That makes a lot of sense. And your above post (not to mention your glaring focus on Chavez's alleged failures) definitively demonstrates that you are unable to contribute to this article with a level head. -- WGee 19:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I have lost all hope that Sandy will see this in a level manner, having studied Venezuela's economic situation in detail I could write tons of paragraphs about it and it would be far more complex than socialism bad, it is all petrodollars etc. Granted it it would be mostly original research so I am left to report what I have heard him say, or having been described. I kind of put that project in the back burner but I found some sources check it here: [42] there are two sentences that I referenced that can be added. Flanker 03:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You should rightly not hope that I will accept original research, which is against Wiki policies. On the other hand, I have not yet lost hope that you will return to a manner of consensual editing, so that all of these articles can be trimmed and balanced, according to Wiki policies and guidelines of verifiability and reliable sources. Sandy 17:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry Sandy I have no intention of adding original research and plan to still adhere to all policies in wikipedia.Flanker 21:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, I don't see you trimming and balancing; I see you trying to inject negative material about HC in increasingly-clever ways. My advantage in this debate is that I know very little about Chavez. All I have is English and Logic. Your most recent edit, for example (the bit from Forbes): actually has some info in it, but you betray your bias with the unencyclopedic language: "Chávez is using the oil card to lure backing...". "Using a card" has the negative connotation of exploiting a situation. "Lure backing" is loaded; an impartial way of saying this is "garner support". I know these terms are in the forbes article -- but that's a magazine. That's a headline. That's sensationalism. Also this insertion isn't closely related to the other clause ("and El Universal reports..."). Mateo LeFou 20:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome, Mateo. Those are interesting opinions. Now for an analysis of the facts:

I don't see you trimming and balancing. No, as a newcomer who hasn't reviewed the talk pages or article history, you don't. I did weeks (if not months) of that before WGee (in concert with another uninvolved editor) — who had never laid a finger on this article prior, and with not a word of talk page discussion, as his first edit to the article — reverted six months' worth of consensual work on the article (producing a perhaps intended side effect of chasing off most of the Venezuelan editors). Next, many authors worked together to trim the article, using Summary Style to move content to daughter articles. As a good faith effort, I first moved anti-Chávez content, and next was to start trimming the top of the article so that we could make room for current events. That work was shut down, conveniently, just after the content unfavorable to Chávez was moved, and before any other trimming could be done. Please do read months' worth of the talk pages before coming to hasty opinions. And please do review the last version of the article, where I had cut the article almost in half, just before that work was shut down.

but you betray your bias with the unencyclopedic language: "Chávez is using the oil card to lure backing...". You may believe you are employing "English and logic", but you have apparently failed to do some basic homework (including the aforementioned review of the talk pages). Any negative content about Chávez — which doesn't stick exactly to the referenced text — is quickly challenged by the WP:BLP deletionists. As you correctly noted, that's the title of the article. Not my choice. Any original wording or deviation from the exact text will quickly illicit an "that's not what the article says" revert from the pro-Chávez editors. Would you prefer the words "garner support"? That's not what the article says. Those words are nowhere in the article. I think the BLP deletionists use as their criteria the Edit Find button: if it's not there, they revert. Sticking to the sourced text has become the only editing allowed by the article owners.

Also this insertion isn't closely related to the other clause ("and El Universal reports..."). In plain language, both articles say the same thing. Chávez is trying to buy a seat on the Security Council. But on this article, we say exactly what the sources say. I'm sorry you aren't able to see the connection between the two sentences.

My advantage in this debate is that I know very little about Chavez. You just happened to come to two articles to defend pro-Chávez bias, and you just happened to have edited Chávez articles months ago, but you have very little knowledge. Sandy 21:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do read months' worth of the talk pages before coming to hasty opinions. No. I already have read too much of the epic miniseries about strife among various editors. I'm sticking with the language on the page and addressing whether it's biased or not.

Fair enough, but if you want to discuss the words in the article(s), be sure you know who put them there, and the history that has forced certain kinds of edits in these articles. Sandy 20:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

that's the title of the article. Not my choice Magazines conform to different standards and expectations than encyclopedias. Maybe people are reverting anything that is not word-for-word from the cited source; maybe not. Maybe they're reverting when you draw a conclusion not in the source, state your conclusion, and cite it. Or otherwise manipulate the source material towards your 'angle'.

Or maybe they just do an "edit find", and if they don't find the exact words, they revert per BLP. That's why I've learned to stick with exact words, and it is unfortunate that these articles have had to be built with such unoriginal, piecemeal editing, for that reason. Sandy 20:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Case in point: your Israel-Venezuela relations article. You speak of a 45,000 to 15,000 drop in Jewish population in Venezuela "as a result of state-sponsored and independent religious persecution" and cite a report by the Stephen Roth Institute. Problem: the Roth report has "15,000 Jews remaining, down from 20,000 before the current crisis". The number 45,000 does not appear. Do I insist you can only use numbers and words that appear in the original document? No. But this is obvious and deliberate twisting of the source material to sensationalize the crisis.

... your Israel-Venezuela relations article. You speak ... My article? I speak? Please do show me the diff where I added the words "as a result of state-sponsored and independent religious persecution". Sandy 20:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you aren't able to see the connection between the two sentences... You just happened to come to two articles to defend pro-Chávez bias, and you just happened to have edited Chávez articles months ago, but you have very little knowledge. Hm. Not sure whether you're saying I'm stupid or a liar. Oh, or a propagandist. Please clarify. My next three edits or comments on these pages will be refutations of pro-Chavez bias. I have not defended it yet, and will not. I'm overall indifferent to the man, and oppose bias as such. I forgot what I did a few months ago, now I'm curious...

(Sorry, forgot to sign yesterday) Mateo LeFou 15:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you did before either, but you're in the edit history, and you're not a newcomer to the article. My only point is that you should know the edit history, and you should know who has made certain edits before making the kinds of accusations you've made. Sandy 20:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: israel-venezuela my mistake, I thought that was your article. That's a separate topic anyway. Here's evidence for my accusation, from this article, from three days ago.: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez&diff=70701123&oldid=70701013. You change the identification of Wayne Marsden from "former US intelligence analyst" to "a writer (at the time) for left-wing publications and a former Navy analyst and critic of the George W. Bush administration". This is a blatant attempt to undermine Marsden's credibility and anyone can see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo LeFou (talk • contribs) 22:03, 23 August 2006 UTC

I don't know what would make you think that I-V was "my article", considering that 1) I advocated that the original sentence or two should have stayed in this article, and 2) there is no such thing as "my article" on Wiki. At the time of Madsen's charges, the story was overblown in many Venezuelan sources, in the belief (in Venezuela) that it was a credible report from an *active* insider Navy person. At the time, there were many reports in Venezuela that did not clarify who he was or what his obvious motives were. Yes, because Madsen was the main fuel behind that rumor (and a number of other outlandish rumors and conspiracy theories), that needs to be clarified, in this context. The content (i.e., unfounded rumor about Navy involvement) is not even worthy of being in the article, and an argument could be made for deleting the entire paragraph; from a practical point of view, taking it out of the article results in anon editors adding the Navy rumor back in, so it's more practical to deal with it thoroughly. Given that you don't follow the article closely, I suggest that you are again jumping to conclusions. Madsen has done a fair enough job of undermining his own credibility, and stating published facts about him is merely clarification. Sandy 01:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow I am Shocked that all of a sudden a verifiable source stating a fact about an opinion (he never did present tangible evidence) is no longer needed in wikipedia, when you realize that almost all of the criticism of Hugo Chavez is the direct equivalent of Wayne Madsen THEN maybe we can reach the same wavelength.Flanker 02:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

So: you think that "a writer (at the time) for left-wing publications and a former Navy analyst and critic of the George W. Bush administration" is more objective/impartial/encyclopedic than "former US intelligence analyst"? Yes/No?

Moving on: this edit is incredibly biased: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez&diff=70672824&oldid=70670211. "the Venezuelan Government enjoys a windfall of petrodollars", "which could increase inflation", and the erroneously-worded "has broken unprecedented records". Spending can be unprecedented, or it can break records. And so on. Sloppy language like this always throws up a red flag for me.

Welcome to the Chavez articles, where we are forced to say exactly what the sources say, and the sources are often a very poor translation from Spanish to English at eluniversal.com Sandy 06:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedic assessment of a leader's economic policy is like this: the person's general disposition is described (usually, e.g. 'conservative' or 'liberal'); her stated intentions about how to deal with the country's problems is summarized, and a quick impartial synopsis of whether these policies had the intended effect(s) is given. This section in this article is a litany of people grabbing quotes from all over the place that reflect well/poorly on Venezuela's economic progress over the last decade, depending on how they want to paint Chavez. You, Sandy, are not trimming and balancing this. You are contributing to it.Mateo LeFou 02:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a description like that about Chavez, you're golden. I've been advocating that the article needs to do this for a long time. I would much prefer that to responding to Flanker's endless insertions of original research via piecemeal editing. Sandy 06:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

To me this was the addition that made me severely question Criticism of Hugo Chavez until I stubbed it under BLP, until then I had ignored it: [43] By far the most extremely biased statement I had come accross.Flanker 02:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Another obvious misinterpretation of BLP by you, and a sourced statement about Chavez that belongs in the article, but you just wore me down on that one in your original interpretations of the text, and I stopped worrying about it. Sandy 06:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No, as a newcomer who hasn't reviewed the talk pages or article history, you don't. Please desist your incivil and illogical habit of disparaging contributors merely because they are new to this article. Mateo's critique of your edits was very constructive and precise, yet your response was unduly inflammatory and rude. Your prejudice against "newcomers" (namely those who have any criticism of your edits) is outrageous and in contradistinction to the founding values of this open-content encyclopedia. -- WGee 05:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not bite the newcomers, it is a wikipedia guideline JRSP 11:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why Sandy is always accusing people of either being ignorant of Venezuela or being a newbie to the article.Flanker 14:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That's three, joining on to describe someone who is not a newcomer to these articles as a newcomer, and to read lack of civility and bite into my words, when a clear uncivil tone came from Mateo's uninformed accusations. Sandy 20:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Its an observed pattern Sandy, it is already 172, WGee and Mateo that have commented on what they percieve as attacks to them being new to the article. Not everyone has the time to read the 13 archives, one of the reasons wikipedia was founded was precisely so that anyone can edit and opine in the talk page even if they found out about Chavez an hour ago.Flanker 21:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. You've used the same disingenuous rhetoric, Sandy, to pejoratively identify me as a "newcomer". The very act of dividing people into "newcomers" and "non-newcomers" is offensive (not to mention illogical, since you were once a "newcomer" yourself), as it implies that the opinions of "non-newcomers" are more important than the opinions of "newcomers". A so-called newcomer could very well hold a Ph.D in Public Policy, you know. -- WGee 03:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

When I was a newcomer, my first edit to the article wasn't a six-month revert, with no talk page discussion. You are the one being disingenuous here. Sandy 05:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)