Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 16

Large Problem

Some joker has the Hugo Chavez link in that appears in the list that results when you search for "Chavez" redirecting to Jimmy Wales. I have NO idea how to fix this, but I just thought it should be brought to your attention. Thanks.

--A Wikipedia Fan (Who should really get off his keister and become a registered member)

Addendum: This appears to have been fixed. I don't know if it has or if it's my cache or something.

Non-specific criticism

You all need to wake up and smell the roses. This guy is a hero, and of the over 1000 people ive surveyed, 972 have said that they would much rather Chavez be our president than bush. He is a hero for providing fuel to the needy, regardless of his motives. Anyone who cant see that is a jerk.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.175.200 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

When was this survey taken, moron? You're making up shit. You probably surveyed a bunch of communist morons from the upper east side. Chavez is a rotten bastard who supports Castro, as well as the President of Iran. Chavez is an anti-Semite. He's helping terrorists come to the U.S. through Latin America. He's a Communist who robs from the taxpayers of his nation. He's a paranoid idiot who thinks that our government is responsible for 9/11. He has a problem with Bush and the U.S. for no apparent reason; we've done nothing to him. He stole elections in Venezuela. He had dissidents killed. His giving oil to bums in America means nothing; it's a drop in the bucket to him. Chavez is a jackass, and you're a jerk for supporting this asshole over Bush. How can a liberal such as yourself support an asshole who helps terrorists? Honestly, you're an idiot. Go to hell. You're an embarrassment to America. You hate your own country; piss off, faggot. Why don't you go move to Venezuela if you like that piece of shit Chavez so much? Liberalism is a mental disorder.209.247.23.131 23:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Far-Left thinking is just as much a narcotic as far-Right thinking. Both have the same effect on the mind as drugs: escape from reality. Many of Chavezes attempts at addressing social ills through better housing, medical care and education are good things. However the wholesale Chavez vision to reject the free market is extremely destructive and will stunt and even cripple the Venezuelan economy over time. The economic charts in this article look like they have been 'cooked', first by the Chavez government which gathered the statistics and then were probably 'garnished and served up' by some American college professor expert in the art of sophisticated self-deception in the service of pure socialism.

Thankfully, the text of the article shows more balance-- The fact is that pure socialism doesn't work-- it cripples economies and gradually destroys personal freedoms. Pure capitalism doesn't work either-- it's a brutal system that grinds down the disadvantaged. Traditional corrupt Latin oligarchies are even worse. What is missing in Venezeuala is a wise balance of free market and social investment. What is also missing is a Left that is capable of self-criticism and flexible, pragmatic thinking. The same goes for the far-Right. The people of Venezeula will suffer the most from this sort of polarization.

Many in the United States academic Left make a shameful contribution to this dilemma-- firmly entrenched, having destroyed much diversity of thought in American Universities in favor of far-Leftist thought-- as a result, Chavez has been intellectually poisoned by drinking from this well in his voracious reading of U.S. Leftist scholars over the years. In the U.S. academic world there are no checks on the arrogant certainty of unanimity and squelched debate. And worst of all there is no middle ground where pragmatic solutions can be hammered out. Many U.S. academics are deliriously satisfied with Chavez, while in the long run-- everybody loses.

Phil

168.103.82.104 10:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Phil makes some good points here.209.247.23.131 23:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

To say that the people are 'split' over Chavez is simply not true. Split implies roughly even numbers of people on both sides when ALL recent elections, media studies of the poor, basically anything that asks people other than the wealthy and the media (owned by the wealthy) show that overwhelmingly people support Chavez. Whether you agree with his politics or not it is simply NOT TRUE that the people are 'split' they clearly support him. Yet when I tried to change the article to say 'a vocal minority' disagreed with him, instead of the 'split' comment, I got reverted. This is an example of Wikipedia at its worst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.176.14 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism should be about Chávez or his policies. Also the word "numerous" sounds like pov-pushing.

Human rights organizations Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented numerous human rights violations in Venezuela, although these have usually been reports of police misbehaviour and brutality rather than criticism of Chávez's policies. [1] [2]

JRSP 17:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In Response to above comment: The most recent approval rating shows him a little over %50...so isnt that split? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.42.65.242 (talk • contribs) 08:34,25 November 2006 (UTC)

That has always been an issue if you read their statements you could see that very little was directed at the government itself, but rather was "Fear of safety" about someone that could be threatened but not exactly by the federal government (local police, mafias, common citizens etc) Criticism has to be more specific to what they specifically accuse the government of. Flanker 22:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I have always maintained that the criticism should be specifically about Chavez. -- WGee 23:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Once the wording is cleaned up, it will be a fine addition to some article about Venezuela. Unless there's something I've missed, I agree that it doesn't belong here. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Though the HRW material does refer to aspects of Chávez policies - resulting in claims of restricted media and alleged deterioration of judicial impartiality. Amnesty International, however, doesn't mention Chavez's involvement in human rights violations. The line needs amending rather than removing to briefly mention the HRW claims which are explored in the criticism article.--Zleitzen 15:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

But Ley Resorte and lack of judicial independance is already in the article, also the "targetting" of Sumate for taking money from the NED.Flanker 16:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that an accusation of "numerous human rights violations" sourced with a couple of directories is POV-pushing. If we go one level up in both sources — South America for AI[3] and the Americas for HRW[4] — you need to browse a lot to find anything about Venezuela. I could find more concerns about Peru (which has about the same population as Venezuela) but there is no criticism at all in the Alejandro Toledo article. JRSP 16:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Even Sweden has a worse human rights record, and I have yet to understand how court packing is related to a human right. Flanker 17:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Advanced modern free nations such as USA, UK, Sweeden, France, Japan, and their kind always appear to have worse human rights violations because every minor infraction is allowed to be documented, its called freedom on the press. In countries such as Venezuela most incidients arent allowed to be investigated, or are hidden, organisations like UNCHR, Amnisty International, Human Rights Watch, suffer either restricted and escorted movements, or are just banned from operating.

If you can't understand how court packing (usually called jury rigging if they are even allowed a jury rather than just a Judge who is in league with Chavez) is a breach of human rights then you are as blind to Chavez's corruption as you seem from your posting, it is a human right to have a free, fair and just trial, and court packing (jury rigging) for the purpose of rigging the virdict for Chavez's desired outcome then it is an infringement of their rights.

As to using "numerous" should we say for instance that HRW has documented X thousand cases and expects that a further X million have been covered up or it has not been allowed to investigate them? MattUK 22:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

MattUK, you cannot assume there is widespread undocumented human rights abuse without offering a single grain of evidence. And your "advanced modern free nations" have the most one-sided media in the world, where all the developing dictatorships you perceive yourself to be surrounded by are always wrong and you are always right. And even though "every minor infraction" is documented, great violations are missed, and the greatest violations are publicly known and widely supported by media-fed populations.146.115.71.14 23:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The user above raises an important point, though I disagree that the greatest violations are widely supported by populations in free nations. I think though, that we can conclude that it is impossible to form any true estimate of the rate of human rights abuses in countries where information is imperfect and limited. We can't conclude that Venezuela has more or less violations than first world nations from estimates alone; I'm of the opinion that Venezuela's violations of human rights occur more frequently and are far harsher than what would ever be tolerated in first world nations; however, I don't know if I have the hard evidence to back it up. We can however, report on what human rights abuses ARE known and reflect on their severity.

-In response to the crazy guy at the very top...I don't think you have any idea how to conduct a proper, random survey. And even if you were able to get those numbers, I think that even disgruntled Democrats would agree that being better than Bush does not make you a hero. {{Subst:unsigned|152.3.99.13|00:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)}

He's not even better than Bush. Comparing Chavez to Bush is like comparing Joseph Stalin to Herbert Hoover.209.247.23.131 23:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Tannim's edit

Chavez has associated with rougue nations Cuba, Iran. The Kentucky Enquirer Sept 21 2006

Question: isn't the term "rogue nations" inherently pov? {user:Ken Burch 12:17 am 10 December 2006}206.174.89.87 09:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Since this edit is contentious (to say the least!) I thought I'd move it here so we can discuss it rather than edit it in and out.

I'm in the process of finding the article to which it belongs. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any articles about Chávez at all.[5] The front-page article about gas prices doesn't even mention his country. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I also found several on the Fox News web sight. Go to search under Chavez. As this is the leading electronic news service in the United States is that sufficent? It seems other than you and a few others, criticism of anyone on the left is automaticly rejected. I'll delay puting it up untill I hear if Fox is an acceptible source.Tannim 15:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

FOXnews is by no means a credible source. Similar to "Wochenschau" or "Pravda".--El magnifico 10:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Fox is unquestionably a credible source, you commie faggot. Just because you believe that it has a conservative bias doesn't mean that it makes up stuff. Fox is still a reputable news source. Now eat shit.209.247.23.131 23:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by El magnifico (talk • contribs) 10:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Beware of guilt by association WP:BLP You have to do a lot more than that, that explicit quote goes against policy. Not to mention POV declaring entire nations as "rogue" based strictly on US foreign policy rationale.Flanker 16:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I presume that if an article is actually found, we can get something more concrete than "rouge nation". The fact that I don't have a quote right now makes that moot.

Regarding the earlier version: I've not heard of Chavez associating with North Korea at all. If there is evidence of that, it certainly belongs in the article—Kim is the dictator's dictator, and the DPRK is the canonical rogue state. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find anything on the foxnews.com website, at least in the first 10 search results. Most of the articles were about the oil subsidies. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

First although I personaly believe Chavez is the greatest threat in the Western hemesphere from his dignty battalions to his attempt to influence the elections in Mexico, Peru, Columbia and now in Nicuragua I am stating who he associates with. North Korea has been condenmned by almost every country in the world for it's nuclear test and Iran supports Islamic terrorists does that make them not rogue nations. Also Fox is an independent network that does not give Bush several hours on the weekend to spout propoganda, that is the source I am using. So the question is electronic media, a acceptible source?

The Venezuelan foreign minister condemed the nuclear test, stating a foreign policy of universal nuclear disarmament, this just shows a certain bias in expecting what you want to hear, and yes "Rogue" nations is POV, the rest of the world sees the US under the same category as well.

Electronic media is an acceptable source just that the statement is not, his association with Cuba and Iran are already present in the article in a way that conforms with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.Flanker 17:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

First before the test Chavez was visiting these 3 nations. And please don't buy into Chavez 's propoganda regarding the U.S. Thge U.S is one of the leaders of the Free World. You may not like it but this nation help save the world from the Nazis and communism. Chavez without oil would be another 2 bit dictator like Mugabe. 64.12.116.203 17:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. is unquestionably the greatest country on earth, and we give more foreign aid than the rest of the world combined. For anyone to call us a "rogue" nation is just laughable. The commies in the rest of the world are just jealous.209.247.23.131 23:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

As above, I'm having trouble finding information about Chávez and North Korea. I have seen a few things, but nothing I'd prefer to use in the article—if push comes to shove I've seen some things from the US State Department, but I'd prefer not to use it. The article uses too much from the State Department (and way too much from Venezuelanlysis), and I'd prefer a rounder view of things. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

O.K since you seem to be a neutral arbiter as opposed to some others objecting, I'll accept it. But I think Wilkipedia sometimes is trying to be too balanced most reputable news outlets see Chavez as a thug. By the way is Fox News acceptible as a general reference?

FOXnews is by no means a credible source. Similar to "Wochenschau" or "Pravda".--El magnifico 10:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

CRGreathouse, you will have trouble finding information about Chávez and North Korea for the most simple of reasons: Venezuela does not even have a diplomatic delegation there [6]. Venezuela has good relations with Cuba and Iran but has very little to do with North Korea JRSP 21:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

In respect to Cuba, almost all nations have good relations with that country at present, minor spats with Néstor Kirchner of Argentina and Vicente Fox of Mexico have occurred in recent times but these are typical international diplomatic fall outs. Europe and Asia have very good relations with Cuba, the British Council and British embassy in Havana are forever attempting to solidify relations [7]]. And many African countries - particuarily South Africa view Cuba as its most loyal ally in the long struggle against colonialism and apartheid during the battles of the 60s-80s. If one doesn't believe this then watch the last 20 seconds of this interesting short video and the extraordinary reaction to Castro's only speech to the South African parliament[8]. Cuba recently hosted the conference of the Non-Aligned Movement welcoming the leaders of nearly two-thirds of the United Nations's members which comprise 55% of the world population. Hardly evidence of a "rogue nation". Chavéz does have a rather frightening obsession with perennial fox-in-the-chickenhouse Castro - and that cannot be healthy given Castro's occasionally aggressive methods of holding onto power for its own sake. But what constitutes a rogue nation is in the eye of the beholder. Fortunately wikipedia is international and can't portray the views of one particular nation or government as the "truth", no matter how many sources are provided. --Zleitzen 04:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I would argue the non-alligned movement is a farce because it will not allow Israel to attend. I'm not sure Greenouse why you had trouble with the Fox News sight when I put Hugo Chavez name in I got info on my first 10 searches. Anf I would argue Castro isn't occasionaly represesive he is a dictator who does not rule with consent of the cuban people. 205.188.116.73 09:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a small thing, really, but would you mind getting my name right? CRGreathouse or Greathouse both work, but "Greenouse" gets the middle all wrong. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Calm down a bit Greenhouse ;)--Zleitzen 14:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Israel is hardly non-aligned... And as far as I know they don't even want to join NAM. It's not surprising that NAM is opposed to many of Israel's actions, they were opposed to South Africa too and probably played no small role in helping to end apartheid and bring freedom, democracy and fairness to all South Africans. Once they'd done that, SA was accepted as a key member. If an when Israel likewise abandons their unfair, undemocractic and freedom denying policies and their special relationship with the US then Israel can and will be admiteed. Until then, they won't and shouldn't (and as I've said they don't want to anyway AFAIK). Nil Einne 13:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's generally well accepted that Fox is a pretty biased source and therefore should usually be avoided when possible. Also you're welcome to your opinions of Chavez and Castro but they have no place in the article nor in the talk page. BTW it doesn't matter what you get on Google. What we need are reliable sources not the number 1 item in Google. If you type miserable failure in to Google you get Bush and if you type jew in to Google you get an extremely biased site widely considered anti-semitic called jewwatch. However we don't write that Bush is a miserable failure just because of Google nor do we use jewwatch as a source for info on Jews... Nil Einne 13:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of Fox, but it's a better source than Venezuela Analysis. CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, having watched both extensively one is responsible and the other is not. Flanker 22:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I, too, disagree. Fox's reporting is unreliable; as you know, the orgainzation consistently refuses to distiinguish fact from opinion. -- WGee 03:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny, that's just how I feel about VA. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Both Venezuelanalysis and Fox can be legitimately used as primary sources, if necessary, but neither of them should be used as secondary sources, given their overt bias. Since they refuse to differentiate between fact and commentary, we'll have to do that. -- WGee 21:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Fox News is the number one news channel in the United States and unlike VA does not give President Bush several free hours to express his views. I feel this source is a legirmate as the NYT or BBC. Tannim 14:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

...unlike VA does not give President Bush several free hours to express his views What are you talking about? VA is not a TV or radio station so I don't know what you mean by "hours" JRSP 15:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It is all immaterial, here is the number two news source in the UK, The Mirror. Perhaps Tannim would like to edit that information into the George Bush article.--Zleitzen 18:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

And extremely serious and reliable The Sun comes pretty high up as well. The fact that Fox is the biggest "news" network in USA doesn't mean squat to anyone else than republicans. Fox is infotainment, not news. There's also a world outside of the USA so it is pretty ridiculous to even compare Fox to the BBC. In fact, it's ridiculous to compare almost any news source to the BBC in 99% of all cases. Jooaakim 16:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

<<In fact, it's ridiculous to compare almost any news source to the BBC in 99% of all cases.>> Yup, sure is. Where else in the world are people regressively taxed by being forced to buy a licence simply in order to own a TV set, and then have that tax spent on an institutionally left-biased corporation? 83.61.2.236 01:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

As the other person said, Fox TV is nothing but infotainment. Infact, its not even that. Its entertainment for oil guzzling republicans. You talk of the BBC being an "institutionally left-biased corporation" but Fox TV is a redneck's fascist social entertainment.

And wasn't this discussion on Hugo Chavez not Fox TV mr 83.61.2.236!?!?!?!?

Watching FOX´s "news" is a great entertainment. Propaganda minister O´Reilly and sturmbandfuhrer-little Sean Hannity are my favorite comedians. Try the BBC world service instead. Using FOXnews as a source is like using the nazi-German propaganda ministry or the Soviet kremlin as a source. Get real!--El magnifico 10:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

To change gears from the Fox issue, these nations are "rogue" from what? The contentious bit is the phrase "rogue nations." Getting specific will avoid unecessary quarrel. Because the phrase is vague, I agree it is unsuitable for this historical article. MarioCerame 10:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I keep reading on different pages, editors claiming Fox News is not a legitimate source. El Magnifico: Fox News is an independent news source unlike the German Propaganda or the Kremlin. Many in the U.S would argue that is less biased than the BBC or Rueters who allows it's stringers to use doctored photos. As this is considered one of the worlds leading news channels it can not denied as a source because it employs Sean Hannity.Decato 15:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The section on the attempted Coup plot is inaccurate to the point of being the opposite of truth

There are many books, and movies on the Coup attempt by well respected journalists that are hailed. There is video of what happened on the day. There is ample evidence, so I am confused as to how the article could draw the exact opposite conclusions of the truth. This isn't a controversial topic on what occured factually during the Coup. There are questions as to how much U.S. involvement there was (probably just open support), but the actual events of the day are recorded suprisingly well on video. The shootings of the snipers, the return fire, the media's reporting of it. Why the group was rerouted to the Palace.

There is a ton of evidence on this topic, how does the article have none of it, and draw such radically invalid and incorrect conclusions? I don't wish to tell any of you what the truth is, I would prefer you do the research as well. You will find respected, and widely held accounts of what happened from sources ranging from people who were there, to video, to journalists who covered the topic.

Reputable sources like the Financial Times.

If we cannot expect a topic as well documented as the coup attempt to be accurate on wikipedia, then how can we expect a less documented topic to be NPOV? 70.56.179.97 16:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Then YOU do it, the hell is wrong with wikipedia that everyone feels they can judge an article but dont work whatsoever in writing them. If you think its POV, badly written, lacking info or whatever, then why dont you shows us how it is done?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.215.172.49 (talk • contribs)

The coup is well documented? Oh my! That depends who you ask. Many in Venezuela are now rewriting history (favorable to Chavez). Things that happened now the government is saying that they did not happen. So....

Go to Google Video and search for "this revolution will not be televised" (simply searching for Hugo Chavez should work too). It's an Irish documentary, supported by organizations, companies and governments all over Europe (look at the credits at the end of it) about Hugo Chavez. The (double?) coup happened to happen at the same time as they were shooting the documentary, and it is therefore mostly about that coup. It's quite.. amazing, in search of a better word, to see how you can use media to make people believe utter lies, among other things. Jooaakim 16:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I personally think it is best to question both sides of the story, since history can be rewritten both ways. Therefore, the conventional picture of this coup should be thrown into question, since it is not questioned as much. Kennard2 02:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A better first stop would be The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (documentary), where you can find links to both the documentary and to refutations of its various points. Fahrenheit 9/11 was also "supported by various organizations" (and given a thumbs up by various Democratic lawmakers), but anyone who unquestioningly believes every word of that documentary — when so much has been written disproving certain claims and questioning others — is a lesser person than I'd ever want to meet. Calbaer 02:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

I do not understand the reasons for the POV tag. Most of the article is neutral, I can read criticism in all sections of the article (not only in the criticism section & article). JRSP 13:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen this before in other articles about leaders or countries the US government has a less than flattering view upon. Some say reality has an inherent bias. But we're not here to tell the reader one thing or another, we're here to present the facts and let the reader draw his or her own conclusion. Just remember that. 68.193.94.214 00:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Reelection bid

I think his bid for reelection needs a section... He's still attacking George W Bush and apparently ignores the opposite candidate. I'll leave this quote that could help on expanding the proposed section. Just as a curiousity, I didn't know why he was calling Bush the devil, and finally found out; it's from the "W" similiar pronunciation to the spanish word for devil "DIABLO"... George Diablo Bush...

Spanish "W" is quite different than diablo, phonetically it sounds more like "DUB-LAY-VAY." Youknowthatoneguy 04:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"Aquí sólo hay dos candidatos, Hugo Chávez y George Diablo Bush, que los venezolanos escojan pues, si queremos seguir siendo una verdadera república independiente o volvemos a ser una colonia".

[9]

--F3rn4nd0 ^{BLA BLA BLA} 07:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

the revolution will not be televised

There is a documentary made by an Irish film crew, who happened to be in Caracas during the 2002 coupe. It's called "the revolution will not be televised". They have a radically different account of the coupe. The private media showed an incident where Chavistas are apparently filmed shooting pieceful marchers, but this piece was edited so as not to show the Chavistas taking fire from above (they were acually shooting at snipers in the building above). They also show the same scene from a different camera angle, which shows that the march wasn't even passing through the street which the private media had claimed. I think this artical should mention these facts.

Yeah the section certainly needs a spruce up. Flanker 16:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

look for the background of that Irish director...You will find surprises —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.24.119 (talk • contribs)

It's worth looking at the response to that video [10], which shows much of the original/uncut footage from the first. It disputes many of the assertions of the original piece -- the scene mentioned above, for example, shows that the empty street was filmed hours after the shooting. I haven't watched the two closely together enough to draw all the conclusions, but it's pretty clear that the first piece should be watched with care. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There are even bigger holes in the counterdocumentary, including baffling internal inconsistencies, (was it 1:30 or 5:30 how could Xray claim it was both?) check the main article for the revolution will not be televised.Flanker 01:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Length

There seems to be an issue about the length of this article - that it is too long. Rather than adding an unsightly tag it may be better if editors added their opinions below on this.--Zleitzen 05:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey. I added the tag because I was going through the list of Special:Longpages, and this one was near the top of non-list articles, at least 3 times the suggested length. Upon quick perusal of the article, it looked like an easy candidate to break off into daughter articles (e.g. Presidency of Hugo Chavez, Impact of Presidency of Hugo Chavez, etc.). I hope this clairifies things. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the articles is references (162 to be preciese) that is mostly why it is as big, also size is style issue. Flanker 15:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect - review the talk page archives where I have long discussed this problem, and where I calculated prose size, which is independent of refs and other overhead), and which is way beyond size recomendations. I have long advocated better use of Summary Style here, and if a tag gets the job done finally, the tag should stay. Sandy (Talk) 17:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that it could certainly be trimmed down and clarified. But that would not be an easy job for editors to do and still keep all the various subtle points. But I don't think size is an urgent problem here. Take a look at Che Guevara, undoubtedly the best article on a complex political figure on wikipedia. Which I believe is longer. I know Sandy was petitioning for summary style, but it would take a writer of some standing to acheive that and keep both camps happy. The various POV and WP:ATT issues seem to be more pressing on all Chavez articles.--Zleitzen 16:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It would not be hard, if editors would agree it was necessary. We had a very good start on it before WGee and 172 got into the revert business, and the consensual attitude here changed. There are enormous chunks of outdated and no longer useful text here, which is completely repeated in the daughter articles and can be trimmed. I no longer keep this article on my watchlist, since the POV warrior-ing here is insurmountable - I noticed this raised elsewhere - but any time others are ready to work consensually on the article, please do count me in. Sandy (Talk) 17:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have a moment, Sandy, could you dig up the POV to do list I seem to remember being written, and provide a link to your thoughts on the the size and style. I had a quick look but can't remember when they were written. They may be worth reviewing.

I was wrong this is longer than the Guevara article. And that has more references.--Zleitzen 17:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sandy reinstated the tag(?). I see no reason to place an helpful boilerplate on this article when editors are quite capable of discussing this on the talk page.--Zleitzen 17:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is not too long and never was. Complex and controversial subjects, such as Hugo Chavez, need too be explained at whatever length is necessary to ensure neutrality, comprehensiveness, and factual accuracy: arbitrary or uniform size limits are foolish. If the length of this article will prevent it from becoming a featured article, so be it. It is not realistic to think that an article about a very controversial and currently reigning president will attain FA status, anyway. -- WGee 01:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it appears that most people watching this article think that there needs to be some trimming going on. Yes, Hugo Chavez is important, but notice that even George W. Bush's article is not as long (he's an equally relevant, and almost as polemic a figure). And that's the thing: we can remove the content, but it's in the subarticles. WGee, would you really have that big a problem with some trimming, to come more into line with WP:LENGTH, if the content were already in the other articles? Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"George W. Bush almost as polemic a figure." Lol, I think you got that the wrong way round. The article is so heavy because it has 17 pics, if you want to reduce the weight troim them not the text as they are far heavier, SqueakBox 01:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

---

So we've established that a number of editors believe that this article is too long. My belief is that the presidency sections - year by year - are the priority and the sections that need to be trimmed first. Does everyone agree with this?--Zleitzen 06:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the shorter version of the 1999 presidency section from this era [11] dating back to June. Users should argue the pros and cons of that section - but should not let it increase in size any more than it is now. For other shortened versions of sections - please see the diff provided.--Zleitzen 07:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we could put comments in some seccions asking users to add new material into the daughter articles and not in the main one; the main reason this article is so long is that new additions are usually made here. BTW Zleiten, did you check if some of the removed material can fit in the Presidency of Hugo Chávez article? JRSP 10:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I've noticed that users frequently have a tendency to add stuff to the base articles, even when it should go into the daughter article. I could cite many examples. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ana Julia Jatar

I put an edit regarding Chavez stifiling dissent and unfair election tatics. It was removed by SuperFlanker claiming it was not a relliable source. I also see on this page Fox News also being potrayed as not a good source. As this is being done by two very pro Chavez editors; my question is who decided what is a good source? I gave a documented source and someone else can claim it's not. One of the leading news sources in the world (Fox News) can't be used either?Preform 00:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Her publisher is Sumate[12] therefore WP:V

"In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any potentially libellous claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources."

It also violates WP:BLP Flanker 01:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Jatar is also the wife of Ricardo Haussman[13] the same one of the recall referendum Súmate "fraud" inform JRSP 02:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Venezuela's middle class feels the squeeze

[14]. Very damning, especially the pie chart.

Discuss. Loisel 17:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, just to make it explicit:

Economist and market researcher Edmond Saade says Venezuela's socio-demographic composition has changed dramatically in the past quarter of a century because of economic cycles tied to the price of oil, the country's main export.

"In the 1980s, the ABCs represented 28% of the population," Mr Saade says citing research conducted by his firm, Datos Information Resources.

"In numeric terms, the upper and middle classes today represent 19% of the population.

"But if we apply the usual standards for a middle class family - one that can send its children to private school, take a holiday a year, change the car every four or five years and own a home - it's only 5% of the population.

"The other 14% does not share the characteristics of a middle class but has the appearance. Some of the parents may own a home, but the children when they grow up have to stay with them, and their possibilities of consumption and education are limited," he says.

Loisel 23:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

God forbid someone's possibilities of consumption be limited!

Boston Globe addition

This material has some POV in my opinion:

Under Chavez Venezuela has passed laws restricting disrespect of the President. Candiates are allowed 2 minutes a days for advertizing while Chavez has 6 hour weekly program: "alo President" (Boston Globe Nov 26th)

Actually the 2 min TV ad restriction applied to all candidates including Chávez, and "Aló" has been out of the air during the campaign. The "disrespect" law is a valid criticism although, in practice, it has not been enforced. JRSP 10:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I say fix it, though the disrespect law should be mentioned, even if it's caveated with "it's not enforced!" Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Pat, did you check yourself the source? Original addition was made by a problematic user (See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Preform), it is not easy for me to get the Globe here in Caracas. If true, I would like to know if the statement is attributed to someone. Regarding the disrespect law, we can find another source. However, it would not be appropiate to consider it an Hugo Chávez's domestic policy. As far as I remember, the law was made basically because of a TV host who compared the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal with a brothel. Prior to that Chávez had been called "a motherfucker" in local TV and he did not complain. Perhaps this law would fit better in Politics of Venezuela than in the HC bio JRSP 00:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The Boston Globe is an internatiotanly recognized newspaper, other sources who have claimed Chavezs' abuses include Fox News. As these two sources are on opposite end of the U.S political spectrum that should be sufficent. And as Venezuela does not have a free press we can't take there news sources seriously.Decato 03:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Some would say that the US political 'spectrum' is so narrow as to be more of a single frequency. It would be churlish of me to link to Project Censored's top ten I guess. A credible list of sources includes both sides of any viewpoint, not just the one you personally like - and suggesting that the media of a stated enemy of the Chavez government is somehow more trustworthy so it doesn't require any Venezuelan content would not meet that obligation.

Article Jokers

Some Joker has change the title of the article "Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías" a minutes ago and put some vulgar words instead of it. Please show respect for the readers and users of Wikipedia. Alejousb 03:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Happens all the time. Just have to revert it: WP:REVERT. :) Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Lock the article please

He reportedly won re-election vandalism within the next hours, probably days..will be constant. --F3rn4nd0 ^{BLA BLA BLA} 03:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it will be worse than during the UN speech times and article was not blocked or protected that time. As long as we can manage the situation there is no need for edit restrictions JRSP 10:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Baseless Speculation: What if...?

I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this. Concerning US policy toward Chávez: What if the United States endorsed him? I mean, wouldn't that make him look bad? And cause him to change his apparent views toward the US? --ArtifexCrastinus 00:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably because its a step down from supporting Castro. While we supported Stalin, we have no pressing need to consort with socialists, I suppose (with the exception of Blair).--Nog64 01:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Chavez the 53rd or 61th President of Venezuela?

I was looking the Presidents of Venezuela list, and after a while I've notice that probably there is a mistake in that order... If you see the last 3 presidents of venezuela articles (before Chavez), Carlos Andrés Pérez, Ramón José Velásquez and Rafael Caldera you will see that they are the 58th, 59th and 60th respectively. Then Chavez would be 61th. If some historian can help clear this point it would be appreciate. Alejousb 22:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Some pov pushers here believe Pedro Carmona and Diosdado Cabello were Venezuelan presidents, SqueakBox 22:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

In Venezuela, we do not number Presidents, I would suggest removing them. JRSP 23:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I've removed the number from the box. Whether other references to the number stay I don't know. I also don't understand the numbering presidents obsession, and in this case it seems to be an unnecessarily annoying bone of contention.--Zleitzen 01:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

By:EveM== What is to come. ==

Based on the true testimonials of people that have lived under the Castro regime from the beginning to this date. I understand that many people may view this as irrelevant. I ask that you refer to this as a guide for what you will see progress in the country I hold close to my heart, Venezuela.

Business owners will lose the businesses they have worked so hard to prosper.

My godparents owned a bodega, which was in a residential area in Havana. After a decree was written that would begin with the ceasure of the countries larger profit export (sugar). The small business owners would soon find themselves in the same situation. My aunt and uncle would find themselves face to face with two armed guards which claimed the business as government property. They were forced to leave the business immediatly or face time in jail for not complying.

A family friend who had the 16th largest sugar mill in cuba. Would find himself under the same circumstances. Only to be given a letter stating that he should abandon the premises, this was now officially government property.

As the years went by, people did not have the right to free commerce. Food is rationed, children will not receive milk after the age of 5 (it is given back to them when they are elderly) The baby food is also rationed by the can. The size of a coke can, they get 2 a month and have to feed them from the same baby food all month long. There is a scarcity of many food products. People strive to make it by creating underground business to survive, or cater to the tourists. Young girls find ways of making dollars by turning tricks, and becoming escorts.

People get used to the system and generations grow up not knowing how to earn an honest dollar. With out fear, or guilt.

These are people who grow up without any hope, unless they work for or partake in the governments many organizations.

The time will come where the poor are poorer and the rest of the country are poor. There is equality in Cuba, but the government is not equal. They live in the palace and eat the best food. They own cars..and travel. The equality the reigns over the land is dismal and hopeless. They are equally poor and miserable. But, they defend their leader....till the death. "Patria o Muerte!" Sad to say...this election on Dec 3, 2006 will lead to this and even more damage.

I encourage responses.–E.M.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ––JRSP 05:09, 7 December 2006(UTC)

Governmental biases

Not sure what should be done with this, but the phrase:

"Credible anecdotal evidence emerged that Chávez and his allies were penalising signers of the publicly posted petition by denying them government jobs and services.[51]"

Has a couple of problems with it. The link goes to an article which is not publicly available and so can't be independently verified by readers without paying, and is made by the Council on Foreign Relations, which is a US-centric right-wing thinktank and can't in any real sense be considered non-partisan, which surely should draw questions as to its credibility? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob Ray (talk • contribs) 21:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what a "credible anecdotal evidence" is. JRSP 21:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This "credible anecdotal evidence" sounds like weasel words:Credible anecdotal evidence emerged that Chávez and his allies were penalising signers of the publicly posted petition by denying them government jobs and services. JRSP 00:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

compariosn

I was wondering, how does this article compare to that in other languages? --169.232.125.176 00:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Mudslides

I cut this sentence from article, the paragraph is about 15 December1999 not about mudslides: Subsequent mudslides in 2000 and 2004 left 14 dead. JRSP 01:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)