Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 17

Lead

I just noticed the restoration of the below in the lead.

Whether viewed as a socialist liberator or an authoritarian demagogue, Chávez remains one of the most complex, controversial, and interesting figures in contemporary politics.

This sentence, though perhaps true, is original research. In particular the second line of the sentence "Chávez remains one of the most...". Complex to whom? Controversial to whom? Interesting to whom? Could WGee, who restored the sentence consider a reword so it meets policy.--Zleitzen 03:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have my doubts, I agree the conclusion sounds nice and may motivate the reader to keep on reading the article; on the other hand, it is actually OR. Anyway, I (weakly) support keeping the sentence invoking IAR as it is an inoffensive instance of OR. JRSP 04:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not staying up-to-date here. I suppose the sentence is original research, but it's also innocuous. Plus, the fact that he was named one of Time's 100 most influential people somewhat supports the statement. -- WGee 09:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The Lead dose need amends, he is an authoritatian demagogue (though dictator would fit better) he is complex (as in mentally deranged), contraversial (to everyone apart from his cronies, unless you accept that the rest of the world just thinks he's a dangerous power grabber), interesting (well yes, interesting as to how we restrain, deal with, and untimatly get rid of him) in contemporary politics. as for being in Time Magazine's "100 most unfluential people of 2006", it dosnt mean he was in there for good, Hitler, Stalin and Pol-Pot are in their "100 most influential people of all time" so being in there hardly means you are good, it just means you garnered influence, he is in there because he is a left-wing nut-job who keeps trying to annoy the rest of the world. 86.131.16.140 11:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

From article, for discussion : Whether viewed as a democratic socialist liberator or a power-hungry authoritarian demagogue, Chávez remains one of the most complex, controversial, and interesting figures in contemporary politics. JRSP 01:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is good because it shows a capsule view of both sides. I preferred the original, simpler version "Whether viewed as a socialist liberator or an authoritarian demagogue...", but that's just me. Failing that, any suggestions on an improvement on the anti-Chavez view -- "power-hungry" works, but is a little awkward and also more contentious than I'd like. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest keeping this discussion open for a week, I would like to hear WGee's opinion as he has been involved with the editing of this sentence and he usually pops up on weekends. I prefer the original version but if this sentence is going to be a battlefield we'd better remove it JRSP 01:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, I would also like to know what he (?) thinks. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a "he". And I agree entirely with CRGreathouse—there's not much to add. -- WGee 20:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody object restoring the original:

Whether viewed as a socialist liberator or an authoritarian demagogue, Chávez remains one of the most complex, controversial, and interesting figures in contemporary politics.

I would like to hear McGurk's opinion, specially JRSP 12:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

POV

It's time for another one of these rounds. I'll bring up some of the more obvious problems now, perhaps adding in others as I have the time.

The largest POV issue with this article is its use of POV sources, notably the heavily biased VenezuelaAnalysis. I count 11 references in the Notes section, but that doesn't incude inline citations of the form [http://example.com]. There has been a laudable move away from the use of such biased souces, but there needs to be more. "Wish-List" NPOV would also largely remove US State Dept policy statements (can be used to clarify the US stance, of course, but should not be otherwise used to back up facts, at least not when other good sources are out there) and ZNet (biased and not particularly good). The BBC is excellent, various UN reports and agencies are widely-recieved as true, and certain major orgnizations are in their own fields much better than these sources.

The second major POV issue is the misuse of economic data. I've brought this up before with some effect, but not much. There's no discussion of the disconnect between the inflation figures from Banco Central de Venezuela, which cites a drop of 15.5% in inflation, while the World Bank estimates the decline at 1.4% (a [i]tenth[/i] the reported figure) in the same period.

The criticism section , short as it is, has been edited to the point that only about half its length is actually criticism. A better (short) summary of the criticism section may require a rewrite--and perhaps a few more lines?

The Domestic Policy section is also rather slanted. Extensive figures and citations are provided to list the benefits of the program, but without any analsis of its overall net effect: the extensive funding for these missions does not simply appear. There is a mention of the percentage of government spending, but even that is (dishonestly) compared to the average percentage of GDP on such programs, which could lead many readers to wrongly conclude that the 2007 budget for such programs nearly quadrupled.

Well, this is a start. There's a lot more out there, but by keeping this simple perhaps we can actually improve the article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

We can begin working on the sources. You object VenAnalysis, US DoS and Znet. Any other? JRSP 22:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Well, let me preface this by saying that certainly I don't feel that my list should be considered as more than a starting point for discussion, but let me try my best to find all sources with problems. Further, even admittedly biased sources can be used in articles as long as they are used correctly: showing what one side feels, for example. I saw a US DoS citation regarding the policy of the US toward Venezuela, and that is a proper use of a source few would see as fair to Chavez. (When possible, I of course prefer neutral sources.)

"McCoy and Trinkunas" are cited twice, but I don't know what this refers to. Once I have a name I can trace, I'll be able to form an opinion as to its quality (I assume it's good). Likewise with "McCoy and Neuman" (3 citations).

Niemeyer is cited thrice without a full citation; I'm less sure about this source based on the quotations given. This would be acceptable if there was no other source for the information, but it seems to be cited unnecessarily (in that many other sources, presumably, would have the same information).

The Counterpunch article seemed a little slanted, but I'm not familiar with the source so perhaps it's a misjudgment on my part.

Above I questioned the validity of figures from Banco Central de Venezuela, but I would like to stress that I have no objection whatever to its inclusion as a source. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Venanalysis

Below are the sentences that cite VenAnalyis as a source.--Zleitzen 23:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• “Additionally, in 2005 Chávez announced the creation of a large "military reserve"—the Mission Miranda program, which encompasses a militia of 1.5 million citizens—as a defensive measure against foreign intervention or outright invasion” [64]

• “Chávez took the same opportunity to state that "the taste of victory" was apparent with regards to the promotion of his own trade alternative, the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA—Alternativa Bolivariana para América), which Venezuela and Cuba inaugurated on 14 December 2004.[68]”

• “construction of thousands of free medical clinics for the poor,” [92]

• “[the enactment] of housing subsidies” [96]

• “The Ministry of Energy and Petroleum has been successful in restructuring Citgo's profit structure” 107

• “as well as the granting of thousands of free land titles, reportedly to formerly landless poor and indigenous communities” [102]

• “The World Bank calculated a 10% drop in poverty” [123]

• “Later in his life, Chávez would acknowledge the role that democratic socialism (a form of socialism that emphasizes grassroots democratic participation) plays in Bolivarianism” [147]
• "Criticism from Chávez supporters arises from reports that Chávez is not fulfilling his major campaign pledges with respect to labor and land reform" [150], [152]

• “although he has had a series of disputes with both the Venezuelan Catholic clergy and the Protestant church hierarchies” [162]

I think Venanalysis can source things that Chávez said (Mission Miranda, "taste of victory") and also the criticism from supporters. JRSP 00:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur, though as I mentioned I prefer to use neutral sources when possible. Of the instances above I see 107, 123, 150, 152, and perhaps 162 as the most important to replace. Other than 107 I don't take issue at all with the analysis, I just want a better source. For 107 I reserve judgment on the success of the restructuring but feel that another source should be used.

Thanks for helping wok this out, I appreciate it. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Disputes with churches

Regarding 162, disputes with several Roman Catholic bishops and one retired cardinal can be easily sourced to lots of neutral sources; but I'm not sure what they mean with "Protestant church hierarchies", let me see what I can find but the term is somewhat ill-defined. JRSP 03:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly I have no idea, hence my "perhaps". Maybe a rewrite would be better...? Good luck,in any case. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The only big issue I remember with a protestant denomination was New Tribes expulsion [1], and Pat Robertson, of course :-) JRSP 03:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I found something on La Jornada.[2] Is it a RS? JRSP 03:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks good to me, although I've not read the site before today. The article seemed to talk more about various disputes with the Catholic Church than about any "Protestant church hierarchies", though. Certainly it seems fairly neutral as a source—no vested interest, just reporting on what was going on. Let's use it. CRGreathouse (t | c) 06:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

WP article says La Jornada "is one of Mexico City's leading daily newspapers" and "generally takes center-left stances". I think it can be considered a RS. JRSP 10:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Citgo's profit structure

I agree that “The Ministry of Energy and Petroleum has been successful in restructuring Citgo's profit structure” [107] sounds like a crystal ball. I found this at the PDVSA website[3]. Primary source: Chávez himself saying "“Last year[2005], CITGO started to yield dividends for its first time. Venezuela had not received a penny from this enterprise for 20 years”. I think however that this statement can be backed up by [4] JRSP 11:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"Accordingly to Finance minister Nelson Merentes, the Venezuelan 2006 budget would get more income from taxation than from the oil industry, unlike formerly." This sentence needs to be elaborated, because much of the government's tax revenue comes from the oil industry; thus, it is possible for most of the government's income to come from both taxation and the oil industry simultaneously. I assume that the sentence is comparing tax revenue to profits from state-owned oil companies, but I don't want to edit the article based on assumptions. -- WGee 23:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This is what Merentes say. Originally, it was not attributed and it said "for the first time", perhaps 1st time in decades, almost a century but not absolutely the 1st time JRSP 00:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I modified the "... successful in restructuring Citgo's profit structure" fragment, please check. JRSP 20:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, very good. (For the first source,) the original article and its Google archive are dead, and archive.org doesn't have a copy. Pity. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I also tried those. Anyway, I think the infovenezuela copy refers to the original NYT printed article: March 5, 2005 Saturday Section C, Pg. 1 JRSP 21:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The statement "The Ministry of Energy and Petroleum has been successful in restructuring Citgo's profit structure" translated from properganda translates as "The Ministry of Energy and Chavez's cronies have been successful in stealing from a private company, private investors and the public, for the benefit of Chavez and his minions", just becase an "elected" person decides to steal a business doesnt make it right, or even legal. 86.131.16.140 11:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

World Bank

I think Venanalysis is reliable in this case: It is not an original report but a reproduction of an article from Panorama, a main newspaper from Maracaibo[5](they don't have an archive of old articles), and David Varela is actually from World Bank[6]. JRSP 22:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I found a copy of the original article at Universidad de Carabobo (state-owned but autonomous from central government). Venanalysis translates a subset of this article. Are we done with this particular issue? JRSP 16:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I would think that the World Bank is a far more reliable source than Venanalysis, being that is takes its raw data from a large source of reliable and counter checked sources. Additionally like all dictatorships the information given out by the government is usually falcified to allow them to manipulate the population at large. 86.131.16.140 11:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

McCoy

This is Jennifer McCoy (homepage) from Carter Center. McCoy&Trinkunas can be “Venezuela’s ‘Peaceful Revolution’,” Current History (February 1999): 122-126 (with Harold Trinkunas). McCoy&Neuman can be “Defining the ‘Bolivarian Revolution’: Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela,” Current History (February 2001): 80-85 (with Laura Neuman). The page numbers don't match however; perhaps they are other works but I bet these are the authors. JRSP 00:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Done with both refs, not the articles I said before but reports from Carter Center available online JRSP 19:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for all your work on the references, they're much improved. I would have loved a link to the World Bank directly, if they had the article even a summary online, but we live with what we have. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"Pendejo" in S.A. does not mean "dumbass"

According to native speakers, in South America at least, the term (which Chavez called Bush) is more akin to "simpleton" - it is sufficiently non-offensive that a woman can say it to her mother for falling out of a chair. In Mexico it has the meaning of "asshole."

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=22888 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.197.53.122 (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

The meaning depends on context. I remember it was a meeting with foreign ambassadors in Caracas (2004?) and he was referring to Bush intelligence local sources before the 2002 coup, he said something like they told Bush that Chávez had no support and the very pendejo believed that. In this context pendejo means somebody that easily gets fooled JRSP 13:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It was on a rally on or before 1 March2004: 'El mandatario reiteró sus acusaciones y dijo que ahora Bush apoya una nueva conspiración, atendiendo recomendaciones de sus asesores y de la estadounidense Agencia Central de Inteligencia (CIA) que "le calientan la oreja" diciéndole que Chávez perdió apoyo popular y que la fuerza armada está en su contra. "El muy pendejo (tonto, estúpido) se lo creyó," agregó.' "Chávez insulta a Bush y amenaza con cortar petróleo a EE.UU". Terra. 2004-03-01. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) —JRSP 16:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That's right. "Pendejo" isn't a strong, offensive word. The above explanation is correct, and I must add that "pendejo" is also a name given to pubic hairs in certain regions. --Alvabass 01:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What the initiator of the thread says is partly correct and needs modification. Chavez is firstly Venezuelan. In Venezuela, while pendejo can be used by a parent to his/her children, or even by one spouse to another, it can also have a more offensive connotation, depending on context. For example, a Venezuelan grandparent might say to his adolescent grandchild "No seas pendejo, vale" in response to a naive statement made by said grandchild. At the same time, "Mira vale, tu, eres un pen-de-jo" could very easily be hurled as an insult to a despised co-worker in response to some inane comment. In this context, the statement would very well be offensive and out of character. On the other hand, "dumbass" is not necessarily offensive and, like pendejo, the term can give offense depending on the context. Also, to clarify any uncertainty as to the meaning of the term in Venezuela, pendejo does not mean "asshole" in any context in that country. So, in conclusion, in Venezuela pendejo can be translated as any of the following: dumbass, simpleton, idiot, nincompoop, naive, etc. Another generally synonymous, wholly Venezuelan term for pendejo would be paju'o. Alexescalona 19:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency

I don't know all that much about Chavez, but I noticed on the chart at the begining of the article it says:

In office February 2, 1999 – April 11, 2002 April 13, 2002 - present Preceded by Rafael Caldera (1999) Diosdado Cabello (2002) Succeeded by Pedro Carmona (2002) Incumbent

how can Pedro Carmona be an incubent if Chavez was President since 2002? Can somebody who knows more about the subject please look into this? And also, it isn't clear why this article is "Disputed;" since nobody is disputing it on the talk page it seems as if we should take away the label as it only serves to reduce the credibility of the article. Lophoole 18:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Lophoole

---

> I also don't think the neutrality of the article is being disputed so much as the way it has been constructed is being picked at. Will you remove the offending label?

Thankyou,

medradical.

The arguments on the article do have to do with the neutrality of it because many statements are taken from biased sources. Besides, if the label is removed, it would be misleading to the public.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.17.207 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of Free Speech

There was an article sighted by the Boston Globe on how Hugo Chavez has restricted free speech and abuses his power by dominating the airwaves during the 2006 election. All criticsm seems to be gone.Skypad 20:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There are a bunch of people on here who are so pro-Chavez that they try to delete any criticism of him, usually as saying that it is un-sourced, or biased against their mad views that he is the saviour of Venezula. 86.131.16.140 11:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

-people have only deleted criticism of Mr. Chavez because it is un-neutral. Hugo Chavez, unlike the bush administration would like you to belive, is not a facist. Therefore people should have the right to dismiss such accusations, made by users like "skypad". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Izaakvk (talk • contribs) 13:34, 13 January 2007(UTC)

How is this not neutral it was based on a Boston Globe article. The Boston Globe which has a liberal editorial bent; is an internationaly recognized news source.Skypad 20:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the unsigned comment by Izaakvk critisism of Chavez is not un-neutral, and infact where it is justified and based from reliable media sources it should be included as ber Wikipedia rules. People do not have the right on here to as you say "dismiss such accusations", if they are in creditable media (MSNBC, FOX, BBC, Reuters, AP and their ilk (The US state department can not be used for direct critisism, but to back up and explain the US Government position)) then they are fair critisms and shouldnt be deleted by you and other pro-Chavez cronies. Properly sourced criticisms, regardless of if you agree with them or not should be included on here, just because they dont follow with your view of "your beloved leader" does not give you a right to delete them. 86.131.16.140 11:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added some information from a major article in today's Washington Post on the RCTV case and generally about the Chavez government and its relations with the domestic media. I have very zealously cited almost every sentence that I took from the article in an effort to avoid having it reverted, deleted or attacked by other editors. If an editor believes the citing was unnecessarily zealous and can be consolidated, I would not object; but I was more concerned about there being any question about any of the sentences -- they were all taken almost verbatim from the sourced Post article. NYDCSP 17:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not necessary to quote everything, you can change the words as long as you don't change the meaning. Actually, quoting too much can be bad because of copyvio. JRSP 21:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, JRSP. Thanks for improving it. NYDCSP 01:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

POV -part 2

Any pending POV issues? JRSP 12:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The only major issue I have is "By December of 2001, following Chávez's imposition of capital controls, inflation fell to 13.4% the lowest in 14 years,[39] while economic growth was steady at four percent.", where the drop in inflation as recorded by the Venezuelan central bank is completely out of line with other estimates (the World Bank estimate, for example). The sentence itself seems, therefore, to promote a particular view (that Chavez has been an economic boon to Venezuela) by careful choice of source and wording. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What figure did you get from World Bank? If available online, please give me some pointers. I found 12.49% from IMF[7] JRSP 04:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed "following Chávez's imposition of capital controls". It sounded as if the inflation fell because of this JRSP 04:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Are issues that are not complimentry to Chavez going to be removed? Such as his anouncement to nationalized foriegn owned industries ( which many would call theft) Asssociated Press Jan 11, 2007. Or that he is welcoming the Rouge leader of Iran and is encouraging his nuclear weapons program? Fox News Jan 13, 2007.Skypad 20:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sourced negative material is allowed, see WP:BLP for more info. F.F.McGurk 20:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Then there is wikipedia violation going on, I sourced the Associated Press which is a valid source and it was deleted.Skypad 14:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you represented the source in a biased way? Try proposing edits on the talk page first—especially ones that you expect will rouse controversy—and formulate a consensus. -- WGee 23:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

From looking at they way Skypad normally edits things it would have been because it wasnt a pro-Chavez statement, they seem to like to allow any unsourced pro-chavez comments, but anything that is against him even if sourced in 10 different sources would be deleted. 86.131.16.140 11:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is any accurate information that potrays Chavez in a negative light immediatly deleted on the main page or derided on the talk page?Reapor 22:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again JRSP is deleting anything critical of Chavez. It is sourced so I am putting it back.Reapor 12:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You state in the article: "President Chavez is cooperating with Iran and other supporters of terrorism in joint projcts (sic) with the gol (sic) of attacking the United States". Then you claim http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rm/2006/68968.htm as a source for that information. Nowhere in that link does it say Chavez's goal is to attack the United States. The word "goal" doesn't appear at all and there is no reference to anyone attacking the United States. Even if there were, that whole page is simply a statement by one guy before a House committee - that still doesn't make it fact. By your logic, we could use various official statements about weapons of mass destruction and add to the Saddam Hussein article, "Saddam Hussein had WMDs and was planning to use them in an attack against the United States". Surely you must know that's severely flawed. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You think supporting Iran who wants to wipe Israel off the map than the U.S is not supporting terrorism? Why is everything from his not allowing free speech, manipulating the media deleted from this page. And if you dare complain JRSP tries to have you banned.Reapor 22:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

New developments

After Chavez was swore in his 3rd presidential term, Chavez's live televised address to the nation (and Latin America) contained verbal tirades about the new Mexican president Felipe Calderon who succeded Vicente Fox last month and other rightist leaders like Alan Garcia of Peru and Alvaro Uribe of Colombia, both have pro-American interests and allied with the moderate-right Bush administration to fight terrorist guerillas in these countries, but Chavez admired Mexican leftist presidential candidate Manuel Andres Lopez Obrador in his failed legal challenge to become president.

Chavez was friendly with the Contrista comeback political leader Daniel Ortega, president-elect of Nicaragua after 16 years of obscurity, as well his admiration of far-left leader Evo Morales of Bolivia and center-left leader Nestor Kirchner of Argentina. In his first 2 terms in office, Chavez won friends and followers in every Latin American and Caribbean country, to include Haiti, Ecuador and Brazil each one in varied levels of economic development are under semi-left leaders in recent years. Neighboring countries of Guyana and Suriname have many Chavez fans.

But recently, Chavez's relationship with Michelle Bachelet of Chile is questionable... Bachelet turned out to gone bold in her socialist, but very moderate policies and her comfort with the U.S., unlike Chavez's strongly "warlike" anti-Americanism. But in May 2006, Chavez praised Bachelet for her political involvement as a former Marxist activist in the Allende era in the 1970's and she was tortured, forced to exile and returned under the Pinochet military regime. I thought Chavez will relate to her long political effort resumé, but Chavez now thinks Bachelet and Chile had gone "soft". +63.3.14.129 12:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

recently, Chavez attended the inaguaration of Rafael Correa of Ecuador. This smaller but similar country with Venezuela boosts a large petroleum reserve (also an OPEC member), a wide socioeconomic gap (over 60% poor or under the poverty gap) and a terrible history of political crises (esp. Ecuador had two coups and two administrations, Ecuador changed hands of power in the first three months of 1997). In the late 1990's, Ecuador's economy was so troubled, backward and incompetent, the government temporarily for 5 years used the U.S. Dollar as their currency and had to repay a tremendously high debt. More problems arrived in the new millennia (early 2000's) for Ecuador, when two coups led by leftists, former military officers, and an Amerindian guerilla force took over the Ecuadorian government. The events in Ecuador only inspired Chavez and his fellow Chavistas (and Cuba's Castroites whom supported Chavez and the Ecuadorian Amerindian majority regime) to follow suit and propagate the "oppressed masses" rose up against the "capitalist elites" along with a combination of racial nationalism (mestizos and Amerindians against a white Castilian minority) and syndicatism (the idea of mob rule from rural villages took over the establishment, armed forces, and pressured churches, like the Protestant missionaires in eastern Ecuador were killed, jailed, expelled or held hostage by the Amerindian rebels to condemn "American imperialism"). The transition from right-wing militarism to left-wing socialism to moderate democracy in Ecuador serves to us (every country and political system) a warning on instability and when Hugo Chavez enters the picture to support Rafael Correa, let's see what happens in Ecuador and Venezuela (perhaps to inflame extreme leftists and Chavista supporters in Colombia and Peru). 63.3.14.2 12:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have just had a sourced item removed by F.F. McGurk from the leading business publication of Argentina -- Ambito Financiero -- which requires a paid subscription to access the article in question, so it is not possible to link to it. This user seems to be very aggressive in reverting such additions, almost as if he himself is displaying a bias here. I am now suddenly wary of trying to rectify this situation by adding the exact citation, with the title and volume/edition number of the publication, since it cannot also be linked to (the subscription issue) -- will he accuse me of vandalism and get me in trouble or something because it's the third reversion? I've never had anyone accuse me of bias this way on here before so I must admit to being intimidated, and also wondering whether this person is some kind of Chavista ideologue since he managed to revert the edit in a matter of seconds, it seems. Perhaps he can address this directly here? What must I do to satisfy you? NYDCSP 23:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No, no--I don't mind insertion of content, just want it to be cited. There's a citation format for linking to periodicals that I've seen used. Do they have an online edition of their magazine? F.F.McGurk 23:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, FFMcG. I'm sorry if I might have accused you of bias. It was just so quick and it was a removal rather than a 'citation needed' edit, so i felt smacked. Ambito Financiero is indeed online, and as I put in my item it also has its own article on Wikipedia with a link to its online edition. However, its online edition is for paid subscribers only (I am one) so it is not possible to link to the article without a user name and password. I can, however, retrieve the full bibliographic citation and add it to the notes and cite it from the item, if that will do? Thanks again. (and for any Chavez supporters out there, I was kind - the article also had a cartoon of the man in royal robes and a crown, and referred to him as Louis XIV several days in a row that week) NYDCSP 23:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

sounds like a brilliantly biased source, glad to see the war burn on. ugghhhh...--76.19.118.125 11:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oil Output Vastly Overstated

I believe daily oil output in the graph is overstated by a factor of about 1000. See http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/03/15/en_eco_art_15A683259.shtml. Article states about 2700 million bpd are produced while actual amount appears to be more like 2.7 million bpd. This needs more research.

Fixed, it should have said "thousands" instead of "millions", Thanks JRSP 22:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolving a dispute over a deletion of content, without an edit war

I am NYDCSP, and the editor with the user name WGee deleted content which I added to this article. I am hoping this can be discussed here, as appropriate, without an edit war.

The content was material from two editorials printed in Ambito Financiero, the leading business publication in Argentina, and arguably one of the more important business publications in South America. The content was fully sourced, and its original Spanish was also listed in the reference notes in case of any disputes in translation. No analysis or opinion from me was included. The content was critical of Hugo Chavez's governance of Venezuela, and was placed in the section titled "Criticism."

The editor WGee quickly deleted the content, with the following summary statement: "criticism section is not meant to be a haven for excerpts from vehemently anti-Chavez editorials"

I placed a notice on WGee's talk page, and asked that the deleting stop, and that this be addressed on the talk page and not, is is not appropriate, in the summary statements on the history page.

Before I could complete this talk page entry, WGee deleted the content again, with the following summary statement: "(rv -- please read WP:CONSENSUS and discuss controversial changes on the talk page before making them; also, you failed to address my explanation as to why your contribution is unacceptable"

I'll begin with some text from Wikipedia's help page about reverting:

Do's

• Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.
• Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
• If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
• If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.

WGee's summary indicated a clear bias against the content and rather than take it to the talk page, the editor just reverted and deleted twice.

It would be a shame to have to summon a Wikipedia administrator. I believe we can resolve it in the spirit of ahimsa, whose rules are outlined in Wikipedia as:

When in doubt, don't delete That is, edit towards a goal, not away from what you think is bad. If someone contributes something which you find unclear or misleading, polish their work to make it shine. This polishing may involve deletion, but that shouldn't be considered the intent of the edit.

When in doubt, don't ascribe bad motives to people Don't say that stuff you don't like is "vandalism" or "diatribe" or "screed". Rather, treat everyone as if you believe everyone is trying to make a contribution, and is in fact contributing, even if the contribution isn't clear.

I would add that WGee's revertings and deletions are in clear violation of the rules of ahimsa, and also are the "unacceptable" edits here, not mine. I merely added content from a reputable source -- a publication which cannot be dismissed by WGee for any logical reason as has been attempted -- and no POV was added by me as an editor. The material is not obscene, libelous or defamatory -- it is material printed in a daily business publication. In fact, all of the POV here is coming from WGee. This also appears to be a case of an editor overprotecting an article's subject rather than remaining true to the mission here.NYDCSP 07:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I wish to add something that WGee has helpfully pointed out, on the WP:CONSENSUS page:

Reasonable consensus-building

Consensus works best when all editors make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject.

It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position. Good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may be reasonable. However, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice. (Note that in the rare case if the "eccentric" position turns out to have merit, the consensus can change.)

Even if an editor's contributions appear to be biased, keep in mind that their edits may have been made in good faith, out of a genuine desire to improve the article. Editors must always assume good faith and remain civil.

I would argue that my contribution was in good faith, and in keeping with the fact that there is a section entitled "Criticism" in this article, which one previous editor observed has been whittled down. I would pose that the article suffers from an imbalance as a result, and that criticism from the editorial page of a leading Latin American business publication on the subject of this article is appropriate to add, and the content in question was very timely (January 2007), keeping the article up to date and fresh. On the other hand, the edit by WGee was, in my view, not in good faith and not civil.

I look forward to WGee's explanation, and would very much like to negotiate a consensus among all interested editors, in order to ensure this article improves. NYDCSP 07:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. There is nothing wrong with that addition and I don't think it should have been removed. It comes from a leading journal, is properly cited and reflects a well discussed view.--Zleitzen 11:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I had some objections on NYDCSP original version [8], but as it stands now, it is acceptable to me. JRSP 11:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it was a properly sourced article meeting with all Wikipedia rules relating to postings, there was no reason for WGee to dismiss it, however following his pattern on deletes and reverts it would seem consistant with his hard line pro-Chavez (apparantly he can do no wrong) line of editing. Everything that critcises Chavez is appartantly properganda created by the rest of the world to discredit him.

WGee you need to look at the Wikipedia rules, not just quote pieces of them which you do not understand nor comprehend in there entireity, respect your fellow Wikipedians. 86.131.16.140 12:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with NYDCSP, Zleitzen, and JRSP that the passage (in its current version) should stay. I would like to remind all involved to remain WP:CIVIL, though, and not to make personal attacks on WGee or anyone else. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with CRGreathouse's sentiment above, and I thank all of you for helping me be a better editor. I also recommend that we not use edit summaries to communicate with each other rather than the talk pages. I was terribly guilty of this for a while and have learned my lesson; it is provocative and resembles old-school flame wars. Let's just calmly discuss edits on their merits and leave our personal political views aside. NYDCSP 17:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. *claps NYDCSP on the back* CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Should we move 2006 to the 2004-2005 subsection?

A 2004-2006 subsection sounds better to me: the period between the recall referendum and the 2006 election. JRSP 12:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd support that, less clutter and a thematic relationship. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd also suggest that the whole article is becoming long. It would be a big job to start condensing the sections and shifting content from them to the corresponding main articles that have been born of them, but it probably needs to happen as more and more information is flowing in as Chavez's third term begins, and his government takes new, widely-reported and globally-watched steps toward its promised revolutionary transformation of the country, under Chavez's name. What do other editors think? NYDCSP 17:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the same; we need to move some material to the daughter articles, specially from the "Presidency" section to Presidency of Hugo Chávez. We must consider the attention span of readers; also, many people, specially in 3rd world countries still use dial-up and have problems with loading times. JRSP 10:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Smartmatic, owner of Sequoia Systems Inc

From certain sources, much has been ballyhooed regarding the ostensible Chavez victory in the referendum recall, and in the recent Presidential Election in Venezuela 2006.

According the official sources, and the Carter Center, these were clean, verifiable, and a mandate.

According to others who have done the same type of statistical analysis performed on the Florida election results of 2001, and Ohio results from four years later, there are serious basis to question these opinions.

Certainly, based on sworn depositions taken in 2006 from technicians who worked on the Sequoia Systems software for use both in the US and in Venezuela, there is a reasonable cause to doubt that Mr. Chavez won a victory in either case. There is also reasonsble ground to doubt the Bush victories in both years.

There is a valid reason to doubt, on the other hand, that the opponents won, too. The technology and the system itself have become so deeply flawed under the Bolivarians, to the point more or less that former dictator C. Perez is surely smiling from his place of perdition, one needs only to watch videos of national militia men turning voters out of poll places in mainly opposition areas hours before closing time to see why, and watch videos of CANTV employees protesting the loss of employement, and Radio Caracas employees protesting the impending closing of their TZV station's operations to see evidence of growing repression before one's very eyes.Read about the marvellous laws Mr. Chavez has autocraticaly enacted, such as La ley de minorities, and his verision of Enabling Law (the well read reader will recall what the Nazis did with this concept).

Venezuela once had a consitution that was the envy of all unhappy places in South America. After many years of heavy handed dictatorship, the country was on the road to stability, propserity, and progressing towards the democratic ideal in its' laid back and shambling way. There was much poverty, but fewer in poverty than in any other time in the nation's history. GDP was up, distribution of resources was improving, infant mortality was way down, the national life span increasing, and so was the population. At approximately 25%, THE RATE OF POVERTY WAS STILL UNACCEPTABLE. However , to put it in perspective, this was lower than the comparable rate endured by the US during its' Great Depression, and the GDP of Venezuela was higher.

Several truly disastrous years of poor economic results and corruption resulted in a National Despondancy and helped Chavez get oone over on the populace. At the anticlimax of his chicha hall putsch, he was apprehended in the basement of the National Biblioteca dressed in the uniform of a common enlisted soldier rather than in the uniform and regalia of his true rank, hiding in a hole like a mouse.

Fear is nothing to be ashamed of in an otherwise brave and decent character. No sane and reasonable person who affirms life wishes to perish without having served some higher and excellent purpose by dying. One who is armed with the strength of his convictions, however, will face certain death with generosity, composure, and gallantry. Chavez showed none of this, being a base coward, and a man of low self-esteem and a liar.

He has shredded the Constitution, appointing Supreme Court judges from the ranks of his political cadre rather than having them stand for election as required by the constitution. He has turned national election law on its' ear. He now proclaims laws and then submits them to his hand picked legislature of puppets as an after thought, for ratification, rather than for debate, analysis, draft, redraft, advice and consent. Thanks Jimmy Carter, this is the epitomy of self-determination and self-rule under the rule of law!!!

With nearly 70% now living under the poverty level and unable to obtain most basic services of health except through the black market, Chavez adoption of the failed policies of Fidel Castro speaks for itself, no original research is required. Just drive around the street of Caracas, and look for Doctors, nurses, engineers in the streets selling bocadillos to obtain rapidly shrinking Bolivares to buy the necessities of life for their families, who can argue against such progress? And humbler people, what do they do? Eat government subsidized harina juana crawling with South American grain weevils, laden with their eggs!

Visit Miami, follow the money trail scattered by so-called Bolivarians as they stash their ill gotten gains in Planters Trust or Sun Trust, as they buy lavish condominiums and HD TV systems to make the richest Americans envious. Shades of the Emperor Jones.

The newest answer promulgated by Chavez is to put the country under the late colonial trueque system, to distribute "scrip coupons" like those issued by plantation owners to indentured servants and slaves. It could be redeemed at National Stores.

This is nothing original, besides the domestic antecedent, Che Guevara imposed such a system in Cuba with Fidel's assent and support. And, it failed, too.

This movement fails because its' model for humanity is one dimensional, and basd only on hatred and self-delusion. It is not grounded in testable studied fact, nor on spiritual truth. Yet, it has a smart mouthed answer for everything, and when not, a bribe, or finally, a knife in the back for all objectors who want better for their people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.14.96.83 (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Economic idiot

Somebody give this guy Chavez an education in economics. He's going to create shortage, supluses, and gross inefficiences by expropriating the means of production into the state sector and instituting wage and price controls. It's amazing that someone in this day and age doesn't realize that you need a free market and price signals to guide resources to where they're most needed. A command economy just doesn't work. And now the majority people, who are equally uneducated in economics, are giving him the power to rule by decree. Stupid stupid stupid. BillyBoom 16:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

if u know so much abut the "economy" then why arent YOU president on venezuela huh??? Smith Jones 02:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It is ecause he does not want to live in, what is becoming, a Communist Country. You also spelled you wrong, and "you" need to go back to elementry school Smithy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.10.50.212 (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

You failed to acknowledge that Venezuela is an oil producing nation. Oil producing nations don't need a thriving public sector. If they need to fund a project, they can just pour oil money into it. Middle Eastern nations have been doing this for the last 20 years. Although I don't follow Venezuela news, it looks like Chavez is doing the same thing. Obviously the oil will eventually dry out, but once the living standard and eduction level is up to par, Venezuela can build one of those futuristic cities (e.g. Dubai, Doha, King Abdullah Economic City). --Voidvector 06:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

He's doing a lot more than confiscating the oil companies. He's nationalize other things too and he's going to create a command economy where prices are set by committee instead of by the market. Not to mention, investors are going to pull out because they don't know if their investment will be confiscated. The people are going to suffer. BillyBoom 03:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, a battleground or a crystal ball.--JRSP 04:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

yeah, and that 11% annual development index has TOTALLY gotta' collapse someday. Shhesh, you'd think it was the highest gains in the western hemisphere or something from the way these rabid commies defend the autonomy of the poor majority to cast off the oligarchy. --76.19.118.125 11:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Rule by decree

Isn't Chávez technically a dictator now...since he was granted rule by decree for 18 months?!? Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 11:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Enabling laws can be granted to the President according to Venezuelan Constitution, Article 203[9]. Similar laws were granted to three other presidents in recent times (check sources at enabling act#Venezuela). The decrees can be overturned or modified by the Assembly or by referendum. In any case, as far as WP is concerned, he cannot be called a dictator unless RS call him so. JRSP 11:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I checked your user page and it said that you're from Venezuela...that's the first Wikipedian from Venezuela I have seen.  ;)
So, how is it there? Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 23:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we can call him a dictator, Hitler became a dictator and he was elected. Chavez has not allowed a free unfettered election with equal media access, it is a more apt description.Reapor2 12:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Chavez is not a liberal president in a democratic state (Bill & Hillary Clinton, JF Kennedy, LB Johnson, Jimmy Carter), he's not a center-leftist (Michelle Bachelet or Nestor Kirchner) or a classic socialist (Evo Morales or Daniel Ortega), he's another fanatical dictator to bring only pain, misery and oppression to Venezuela and the western hemisphere (god I only hope he won't start wars or get into conflicts!). Chavez has entered history books along with Castro, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Saddam, Mahmoud, Assad, Nasser, Peron, Mao, ho chi minh, Kim Jong-il, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and every possible tyrant you can think of. If it took Adolf Hitler 18 months to consolidate power and suspend congress/parliament in Germany, it can happen to the poor Venezuelans, once a proud nation to boost Latin America's highest personal income in the peak of oil booms (1970's) and Caracas was the most modern city you could find in South America (except for Brasilia and Sao Paolo, Brazil, so I'm not tryin to sound nationalistic or arrogant against other Hispanic or Latino peoples). What happened is the government mismanaged the money, fell into more corruption and nearly the whole petroleum revenue went to a small elite circle ... no wonder by the 1980's and 1990's, Venezuela digressed back to stereotypical third world status. Hugo Chavez was elected and took power from the very people who once supported his idealism and radical approach to income distribution, something that a far-leftist or Communist would dreamed of at the first place. Venezuela isn't a backward, savage, jungle place and no country is inferior because of their race or culture. To visit some areas in the southern cone of South America (more akin to Northern Europe or the western US), or highland regions like Colombia, Andean Peru, Puerto Rico or Central Mexico isn't the same like El Salvador, Dominican Republic or Paraguay (there are many differences of Latin American countries from one another, Mexico and Uruguay would be like flying from India to Sweden, Kenya to Kuwait, or Fiji to New Zealand, and you'll notice the differences in economic, political and social life of these countries.) The Chavista movement is a crock, a trick, a lie, a myth and a fallacy to put Venezuela into a world of hurt and the people are doomed to find themselves in the western hemisphere's newest dictatorship. 63.3.14.2 12:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The US system of Presidential signing statements is similar to Venezuelas rule by decree yet we don't call President Bush a dictator. My own countries political system (Australia) has been decribed by a previous Prime minister as technically being a "benevolent dictatorship" but we don't call it that either. In each case "dictator" is POV as Chavez, Bush and Howard are still subject to law despite the power they have. Wayne 03:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would think it is fair to call both Chavez and Bush 'dictators'. The 'signing statements' that you mentioned and his executive orders certainly make him so. I think that would turn into a huge revert war if I put that on the Dubya page. --Kalmia 11:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Except for the fact that Chavez won the last 7 elections as well as the recall referendum. But let's not let the facts get in our way. Abu ali 11:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The term "president" should be changed to dictator in the article... The elections were not completely free, and also people who oppossed him during the collection of signatures some years ago were fired from their jobs at PDVSA. In addition, he recently claimed that he is going to restrict freedom to people, and their possibility to "give opinions on how they want the country to run". He also stated that "people who try to intervene will be punished". And 'enabling laws can be granted...', as someone said above, is completely wrong since that constitution gets changed every day and half of it was written by Chavez. He wants to rule forever, and just changing the constitution every day to be able to do so does not make him democratic! I do not write for what I hear, I lived in Venezuela for the last 5 years, and everyone who lives in there knows that freedom does not exist... Or has anyone seen a Venezuelan TV show, on a Venezuelan TV channel, where they make fun of the president, or criticize him? It is not allowed, and media is restricted and continuosly threatened. And do not compare him to Bush; anyone can criticize Bush and make fun of him without the fear of being killed the following day. Also, he will leave when his term be over, he is not going to change the constitution to stay 50 more years. I do not want to be offensive, but being in Australia is hard to give an opinion, except from what the media sells to you. Sorry about my rusty English, hopefully the point gets clear. Hopefully we can have more opinions from people living in Venezuela. User:Blas01 01:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

President doesn't mean elected. -- feb^talk 06:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for discussing our opinions. JRSP 11:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, excuse me? President doesn't mean elected.^{1 2 3 4} It's not an opinion, it's a fact. President can refer to more than someone who was elected to power by the population, weither it fits your description or not -- feb^talk 19:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Bypassing the public sector

From a news report, I was left with the impression that the Misiones are efforts to bypass the inherited public sector (probably he thinks it corrupt) with task forces derived from the military. But in the article I only see:

Meanwhile, Venezuela's doctors went on strike, protesting the siphoning of public funds from their existing institutions to these new Bolivarian ones, run by Cuban doctors.

Could you say that Chavez is building a parallel public sector? --84.20.17.84 12:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

EXACTLY so i dont think that we shold do that because we dont know hwats going on yet we need REAL SOURCES not just our own oppinion. and for the person above i dont go to "elementary" school because im not a yank like you. i grew up and wehn to PRIMARY SCHOOL in the UK so i dont wnat to hear trash from you okay? GOOD! Smith Jones 22:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Would the two of you please tone down the personal attacks and bad grammar? CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

OK im s'orry but you shouldnt yell at us for having bad grammer because noit everyone is a nattive english speaker. Smith Jones 03:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case I'm sorry I called out grammar. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"Venezuelan grants for flood aid" should be "food".

Chavez Quote

Can anyone use this? In a recent press conference, Hugo Chavez mentioned that President Bush is "more dangerous than a monkey with a razor blade." Kugelmass 14:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The 'elites' want Americans to dislike Chavez

All of the big American Oil companies want Chavez out of power and they have the CIA at their disposal. The only reason Chavez is still in power is because world opinion favors him and it would create a huge conflict with China and several other nations that depend on oil. This man is a threat to the 'Evil' American Empire. You can debate using the word 'evil' all you want, but when it comes to American foreign policy, how else can you view it. The American Government (not the American people) is one of the worst countries at providing foreign aid. When the US does provide it, it's in the form of arms to dictators that are hiding behind a Democracy campaign. The real truth here is that while the US government talks about promoting democracy, they're actually fighting against it by putting dictators in office that will allow American business to come in and exploit the country's land, resources, and labor. Hugo Chavez is a good man and a world hero! 65.189.221.107 18:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Amusing. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that talk pages are not open forums to discuss general topics related to the subject. They are, rather, specific means by which to improve the content of the subject and the quality of contributitions. Kugelmass 00:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this guy completly mad, or just a retard? 86.131.16.140 13:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

New source?

Between April 9 and 11, the government required, according to the US Department of State, all radio and TV stations to transmit numerous speeches by President Chávez and other programming favorable to the Government, even shutting the signals of the stations who refused.

If possible, I'd like to get a new source for this. The US State Deptartment is a longstanding critic of Venezuela, and is less reliable than I would prefer as a result. I don't doubt the general veracity of the statement, but if a reader was to check the reference for more details it would be ideal if they were directed to a more neutral source. Suggestions?

CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You may find this article interesting:

[Chavez To Shut Down Private TV Channel]

This CNN story discusses Chavez's plans to eliminate nationalize public programming. Kugelmass 00:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I do find it interesting. It well describes the Chavez plan to remove private control from TV stations in miniature. A reference mentioning the earlier shutoff of the station that did a split-screen with the chained broadcast would also be useful. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

I don't think the article needs a special section for quotes. If relevant, sourced notable quotations can be put in the pertinent section or in wikiquote JRSP 11:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)