Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 18

Chavez and September 11th Claims

The section on foreign policy has several sentences regarding Chavez and statements he made regarding September 11th. This section has several problems. The link for the citation 140 does not work. I was able to find on other sites the article cited, but it does not say anything about a 2006 letter to congress from Chavez. The article itself includes the first quotation used, but attributes it to the Venezuela National Assembly, not Hugo Chavez. Also, the wording that Chavez has expressed suspicions about the attacks is misleading. It is entirely different to say that theories about September 11th are "not absurd" and should be investigated, and to say that he has suspicions that the attacks were planned by the US administration. Also the use of "several times" is not backed up by the one article citing one time Chavez said this. Reading this section leaves a person believing Hugo Chavez definitively believes the September 11th attacks were committed by the US, but without any citations that would prove this claim, it seems this part of the article should be removed or completely reworked. RMLibrarian 05:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Vehement criticism and adulation

I think the lead is presenting the controversy on Chávez as a dichotomy. Perhaps something like "ranging from vehement criticism to adulation" would stress these are not the only opinions but extremes in a continuum. JRSP 20:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I dunno I personally find that the extremism on both sides is just passionate rethoric, not really needed to be present in an encyclopedia. Flanker 04:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the introduction is intentionally dichotomous in order to give the reader an idea of the intense controversy Chavez has created. I'm sure that most readers understand that the introduction describes the extremes and not the whole spectrum. -- WGee 04:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My personal view is that this reflects more the situation in 2002 not the present situation. I agree extremism sells but I think the article should stress there are moderate opinions too (the majority IMO). JRSP 11:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This notion that Chavez provokes "extreme" responses is a POV. I am sure that his working class/poor supporters don't think of themselves as "extremists". The idea that every "controversy" has a rational "middle" and extreme "sides" is the dominant newsmedea ideology. So there is no escape from a POV - all knowledge is perspictival - and you cannot not take a side - even pretending that you our not POV is a POV. I support Chavez.

Doesn't he? No one is ignoring him.You either love him or hate him. I dislike Chavez.

Dskzero 21:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

POV

On August 15, 2007, Chavez called for an end to presidential term limits. He also proposed limiting central bank autonomy, strengthening state expropriation powers and providing for public control over international reserves as part of an overhaul of Venezuela's constitution. According to the 1999 Venezuelan constitution Chávez must first seek the approval of the Venezuelan public in a referendum, something right wing critics of the Venezuelan regime have been slow to acknowledge. Furthermore reforms proposed for amending of the current constitution were largely the result of a drive by the Chávez government across Venezuela to bring the public into the decision making process through the use of public forums and debates, another factor conveniently overlooked by critics of the president. Uhh... POV? 75.16.210.239 16:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction seems to have a much different tone than the rest of the article. It seems to describe critical reaction to Chavez as that of fear of his radical poverty-reducing policies and doesn't mention anything about the corruption and shady moves mentioned on later in the article.

I see that venanalysis was removed on numerous places, Leaving only 4 refs: 2 critical, and another archiving a Panorama article, but the same standard should apply to the economist. Flanker 04:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm specially concerned about US DoS sourcing a controversial statement in the 2002 coup subsection JRSP 10:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The US gov:Economist::Venezuelan govt:Venezuelzanalysis IMHO. Flanker 23:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I rather disagree. How do others feel? (Edit: I disagree with SuperFlanker, not JRSP.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? the ecnomist is quite biased, but still indipendant of any government, hopefully you can agree. Flanker 02:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It depends... controversial or unbelievable statements need better sources, or even better, multiple reliable independent sources. JRSP 01:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a particular reference being discussed? I thought this was a general statement. Of course in the abstract I rather agree that controversial or unusual statements need excellent sourcing. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you please be more specific, Flanker? What particular part(s) do you object? JRSP 02:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Mostly NPOV, if a source is discarded to a minimum (2 of them being critical to a degree) then an equally biased source should follow the same path. The Economist is referenced 10+ times, all negative. Flanker 02:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the references in this article for a while. Is your claim (1) that the Economist in general is biased, or that (2) references are being cherry-picked? (1) is hard for me to swallow in the case of the Economist: though I'm no subscriber, I've found its coverage fairly good. (2) seems more likely, though I can't comment without specific knowledge. I will note that your editing patterns, SuperFlanker, do show a strong bias toward Chavez, so even assuming your good faith (and I do) it may be possible that you read as bias fairly accepted statements. Similarly, I believe I have been accused of anti-Chavez POV in the past (actually I've been accused of both pro- and anti- Chavez POV), so if you feel I should recuse myself I won't feel bad. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have the same account on Venanalysis, at least it is used in criticism unlike the economist. So why was one removed to a minimum (2 of them being critical) whereas the economist is given full exposure? For the record I am in favor of BOTH, they are both quality sources that do paint a decently accurate picture (facts and data is generally correct) just slanted to their side (the economist concentrates on reporting the negative, wheras Venanalysis concentrates on the positive). However WP:NPOV states that neutrality is policy. As for characterizations I really don't care what editors think of other editors, I just want the best article possible.Flanker 16:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

All sources are biased to some degree. The Economist has long been a prominent exporter of the neo-liberal economic reforms implemented in Latin America and elsewhere over the past two decades. The very same policies that created the groundswell of anti-capitalist/anti-Washington consensus sentiment that swept Chavez and other left wingers throughout the region into power. This happened when the Economist's touted policies were perceived to have dramatically failed (see Argentine economic crisis (1999-2002) etc). The Economist is traditionally a free market, anti-statist and anti-socialist organ, owned by members of the business elite, and various British aristocratic figures, who naturally support the philosophy of private enterprise over public ownership. One isn't likely to read the dissenting opinions of Bolivian coca growers in the Economist any time soon, nor the theories of those majority voters who have come out in support of so many leftist leaders across the Americas. Chavez very much represents the antithesis of the Economists's editorials and governing philosophy and thus he is a likely target for criticism.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 04:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There are also too many weasel words: "industry analysts", "social scientists", "critics". "So-called" is a word to avoid.

--JRSP 04:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Economist editorial stance Though nowhere close to authoritive it is at least midly comical that their opposition stance was one of the first noted in this article's history. Flanker 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This article doesn't cite Economist editorials; it cited Economist articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Venanalysis articles are also news articles and the opinion section was not touched as a ref. it is all about equivalence and therefore neutrality, a gov newspaper is the same as a D of state website, and the Economist (independent but editorially agreessive) is the same as Venanalysis (independant but editorially in favor). Again I stress that I am for the economist, just that it should be handled in a NPOV manner. Flanker 20:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Some confusion in evidence here about WP:ATT. Venezuelanalysis is clearly an unreliable source of the highest possible bias, essentially an instrument of the Chavez administration and not subject to any sort of peer review or editorial oversight or fact checking as required of reliable sources, while the Economist most clearly meets every demand placed by Wiki on reliability of sources per WP:ATT. Venezuealanalysis should have been removed long ago, in particular, because some articles linked from it also violate copyright, and Wiki articles should never link to copyright violations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC) PS: the last time Flanker raised this notion, a member of the WP:ARBCOM gave a very clear and direct response, here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Venanalysis is an independant source and in no way financially linked to the government, if I wanted to find a govt owned news site I could have linked to Abn for example. They state they do review their articles and they are cited by major newspapers like the Guardian as a Ven newspaper, lastly I have not seen any real errors or scandals about their reporting. Flanker 20:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The Economist

Below are the sentences that cite The Economist as a source:

1. Industry analysts say Venezuela wants lower quotas because, under Chávez's administration, the output of Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA), Venezuela's state-owned oil company, has been reduced by 25% and Venezuela cannot meet its current quota.

2. During Chávez's presidency from 1999 to 2004, per-capita GDP dropped 1–2%

3. GDP growth rates were 18% in 2004.

4. Some social scientists and economists claim that the government's reported poverty figures have not fallen in proportion to the country's vast oil revenues in the last two years

5. They [critics] also cite a failing infrastructure and public hospitals.

6. Chávez has refocused Venezuelan foreign policy on Latin American economic and social integration by enacting bilateral trade and reciprocal aid agreements, including his so-called "oil diplomacy".

7. With respect to domestic policies, critics report that both corruption and crime are rampant

JRSP 03:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing a major bias here (Sandy? Zleitzen?), but there are some things that could use cleanup.

Number 1 strikes me as a suitable thing for the Economist to write on, and not a particularly revelatory piece (everyone's having trouble making targets except S.A. these days). #2 and #3 are dry facts, with other groups reporting similar figures. #4 is also factual, though with a bit of normative analysis; #6 is similar in that respect. (4 is slanted slightly negative and 6 slightly positive.)

Numbers 5 and 7, by contrast, are worded poorly. A basic sweep of wording would replace "critics" with a particular group, but I'd prefer to go a step further and get hard numbers for #7 and something—I'm not sure what—for #5. Transparency International may be a good source for 7, along with some sort of crime stats. Any thoughts on bettering #5?

CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

US DoS

I think these statements need a better source:

• Domestic and international observers criticised the Government for excessive abuse of its right to call national broadcasts requiring all broadcast media to cease scheduled programming and transmit the broadcasts in their entirety. 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.

--JRSP 13:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that really does require different sourcing. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Source it to something else if you want, not because it requires different sourcing, since it is entirely accurate, well-sourced, albeit could be sourced to a multitude of other references. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a particular source you'd prefer, Sandy? I don't like to use obviously biased* sources (VenAnalysis, the US DoS) when possible, even when they only state well-known things. If they're well-known it shouldn't be hard to replace them, right?

For what it's worth I agree with you that it appears accurate; still, where replacements exist, let's use them.

* When I say "obviously biased", I mean as regards this article. There are many articles for which I would consider the State Dept. a reliable source, but in this case there's a conflict of interest I'd rather avoid.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the International Press Institute:

During the protests, the government pre-empted broadcasts from the local television stations Televén, Venevisión, Globovisión and Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV) for a message from the president. After the stations decided to split the screen in two and show their coverage of the general strike alongside Chávez’s address, the government – citing article 192 of the Telecommunications Act, which allows the authorities to requisition air-time on all TV and radio stations – shut them down altogether. [1]

According to CPJ:

Events in April underscored the dangers for journalists covering the political crisis. On April 11, following three days of opposition protests, the government pre-empted broadcasts from local television stations for a message from President Chávez. During the address, private stations split the screen to continue covering the protests. Upset by this decision, Chávez ordered the stations closed and accused them of conspiring to overthrow his government. [2]

According to Reporters Without Borders:

The government used its powers under article 192 of the telecommunications law to requisition all radio and TV stations to broadcast its own addresses about 30 times on 8 and 9 April for an average of 15 to 20 minutes each time. Vice-President Diosdado Cabello said this was necessary to "defend the right of Venezuelans to accurate news." The government used these powers during an opposition general strike that was getting extensive coverage by the privately-owned news media. To sidestep the requirement, the TV channels began during the day of 9 April to broadcast their own news at the same time as the government addresses by splitting their screens. The government ordered the suspension of broadcasting by the privately-owned TV channels at around 4 p.m. on 11 April, shortly after they refused to carry a speech by President Chávez exclusively and used split screens to broadcast live pictures of a major opposition demonstration being broken up at the same time as the president’s speech. President Chávez had demanded that the TV channels run his speech at precisely the moment the crackdown on the protest began. Chávez said the complete suspension of broadcasting was necessary because the TV stations were waging a "campaign of defamation" and were "inciting violence" and because of their "irresponsibility." Only the state-owned Venezolana de Televisión was allowed to continue terrestrial broadcasting. [3]

The State Department doesn't make up this stuff. Spaceriqui 15:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A career "evil" military officer?

Is this a joke? He's an "evil" military officer? That's retarded. I'm removing it. Andy 07:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captain America (talk • contribs) 07:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Why would you even bother cluttering up a talk page by brining up a rather boring example of vandalism? EvanCarroll 01:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably for the same reason you would bother replying to a superfluous comment from eight months ago. <eleland/talkedits> 01:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent questionalble add

In 1972, he came to the USA to formally endorse George McGovern for President. [4]

CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Condensed?

I'm sorry, because I'm posting this after only skimming the article, but is there absolutely no way to condense this huge article down? Surely some of the information is... superfluous? Can't it be summarized? It's just a little overwhelming on first look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.151.167 (talk • contribs) 00:02, March 22, 2007

Sadly it is too controversial to condense. Flanker 20:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is too long, it has long been too long, and it should use summary style more effectively, to come into prose guidelines at WP:LENGTH. The reason it doesn't is that some editors seem quite happy with the volumes of pro-Chavez POV it has long reflected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There have been a few editors on both sides of the argument, who agree that the guideline for length should not be enforced. Flanker 16:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be lengthened. In my opinion, having struggled through it all, there is a lot of information which is not necessarily of great relevance. Maybe including less information in this general overview and elaborating in the corresponding wikipedia pages would help the problem (does that make sense???). I understand that Chavez is controversial and there has been a lot of information about him, but I think that in the interest of accessibility for the average reader, this really should be cut down. Quibbler321 02:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

vandelizm

I got rid of some vandleizm....(speeling bad) 71.217.80.153 00:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the controversial nature of this article, its edition should not be allowed to unregistered members to help decrease vandalism.

Jale86 16:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Political Thug?

Isn't this guy considered a political thug? That's the impression I always got - I mean, his country DID try to coup the guy, why don't you guys write a more balanced article?Labaneh 19:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As a neutral, it seems quite balanced to me. Given that he was elected with a huge popular vote, a failed coup doesn't really imply that he's a "political thug". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.83.1.234 (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree with the comment above. The article seems very balanced to me.

Jale86 16:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You'll probably find that whatever news outlet gave you the impression Chavez was a "political thug" is lacking balance, not Wikipedia ;) --Joey Roe 21:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course he is a Thug he stole the last election, closed down opposition news stations and supports terrorists.Winterflyer 20:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that is just nonsense. No independent election observers have noticed significant problems with Venezuelan elections, nor does he close opposition media (just open the TV in Venezuela and you'll see how absurd that claim is). That terrorist support claim is just plain silly - please offer at least a little proof before making such strong claims. --194.251.240.116 01:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hugo Chávez and Corporate America

Can you guess which country is Venezuela greatest commercial partner since 2003? When people will learn to differentiate demagogues from true politicians?

Due to Venezuela's unability to even get close to autharchy and as it seems its following a gradual diminish in free-market capitalism thus still keeping capitalism. Venezuela, from a leftist-optimistic point of view, is "retreiving blood from the mosquito". 189.141.54.43 21:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC) ZealotKommunizma

Well, I've been reading all the information in this page and the "biography" of HChF. I live in Venezuela and I'm 22 years old, and I van say that a lot of information that is written here is not correct. First of all, never in venezuela 52% of the people has been working as "buhoneros" (a form of informal selling) up until now. Second, Hugo Chavez won the elections in 2006 with ALMOST 8 millons votes, but in Venezuela in that moment there were 17.000.000 people which can vote, it means that no 74% of the people in Venezuela agrees with Hugo Chavez. Third of all, I'm not "rich" but "poor", and I don't agree with him. Fourth, he had build a lot of stuff, but a lot of problems had came because of his politics and unemployment is sky high; a lot of proffesionals like doctors are going out of the country because they can't get a job or they are paid very bad, so what is a train for if no people has a job to go in it?. Fifth, what you called a coup, was not a coup; have you ever wonder why, if the minister of Defense ask him for quitting and participate in the "coup", he remained Minister of Defense? Have you ever heard of Francisco Arias Cárdenas, and what he did in 1999 in Venezuela? Every time I write for this kind of post I try to remain "neutral", but please most of the information this page reflects are from official journals like "Ultimas Noticias"! Worst, from May 28 up until now a lot of people which agreed with him have lost their faith in him for two reasons. He and ather "chavistas" called chavistas to fight students when they were claiming for RCTV (which permission to trqansmit in Venezuela, because it were a coup-participating channel, was not renewed) to get back to air. furthermore, the project to reformate our constitution approved the infinite reelection, almost quit private property and limits Universities Autonomy. So, will have a president which can stay as it forever, private property will be grounded as the government pleases based in the idea of "social interest" which criteria are not stated yet, and Universities will be under the government control... Does this sound to a dictator to anyone else? Please, look for Hugo Chavez in other places like www.youtube.com, so you can see what's really going on here 201.208.177.172 22:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)DarkAngel

your anecdotal evidence is irrelevant and most of issues with him are mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.157.95 (talk) 05:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Economic Policy

The graphs shown in the economic section are misleading. They show GDP in Venezuelan Bolívares, however, the Bolívas has been devalued during Chavez. Perhaps it would be best to show information in an international, solid currency, like the US Dollar, or the Euro. Better yet, by Purchasing Power Parity? Hari Seldon 21:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The graphs show REAL bolivars, converting to a "solid currency" would be more deceiving than simply stating the relative growth compared to the real value of the local currency.Flanker 20:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Note 64 is broken

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/14/AR2006061400486.html Uhh...yep. I'd remove/replace it if I knew how. Cheezmeister 16:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitic accusation in Lead

The accusation of antisemitic propaganda is obviously overestimated by having it in the lead (including a several lines quote). First of all, Chavez himself denies any antisemitic tendencies, second of all the quotation is misleading by neglect context, third of all the prominent place this pure accusation has is totally POV. The quote itself shows the incoherent basis of the accusation: Chavez did never claim that "the jews" killed Jesus, this itself is an antisemitic propagandistic hypothesis, which is implicit taken as supported by Chavez by accusing his quotation as being of antisemitic content.83.180.91.165 01:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Even putting the reliability of the statement aside it has no place in the introduction never mind the first paragraph. --Joey Roe 21:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the statement altogether. If he really said it, I'm sure somebody can re-insert the quote in a more relevant part of the article. --Joey Roe 22:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources?

Where is Tariq Ali's book as a source?

Hugo Chavez:A Trotskyist

Chavez: ``there is a permanent revolution in Venezuela By Roberto Jorquera January 10,2007 marked the swearing in of Hugo Chavez as President of Venezuela. It was used by Chavez to reiterate and clarify the direction that the Bolivarian revolution would be taking during his term in office, which lasts till 2013. In his speech Chavez stated, ``This new period of constructing socialism has barely began. ``Jan 10 finishes the period of transition, this has been a transition of 3000 days (since the last constituent assembly), we are constructing the building which will be Venezuela's socialism, said Chavez.

Chavez used most of his speech to once again analyse and explain the history of the Bolivarian revolution since his failed military coup of 1992. But he also stressed that this will be a fundamentally new period in the Venezuelan revolution with many changes occurring quickly. ``People voted for a project a line of march which has been clarified as socialism. It is socialism that people need and that the country needs, said Chavez.

Most importantly Chavez emphasised the need to change the Venezuelan constitution and the need to make the Consejos Communales (communal councils) the fundamental and post important political decision making body in the country. Chavez said ``we need a constituent power in Venezuela that will draft a new constitution. This needs to have the revolutionary injection for the Bolivarian revolution. We need this so that the revolution never finishes, said Chavez.

On the issue of the constitution Chavez highlighted the need to change article 302 of the constitution which currently states, ``The State reserves to itself, through the pertinent organic law, and for reasons of national expediency, the petroleum industry and other industries, operations and goods and services which are in the public interest and of a strategic nature. Chavez made it clear that such an article was not specific enough and that it needed to include other natural resources on top of petroleum.

Another law that was singled out for change was the code on commerce which Chavez noted was over 100 years old and that the last change to the law was in 1955. ``What sort of socialism can we build with such laws, asked Chavez. ``There are many things in the constitution that we need to clarified and rewrite, said Chavez.

Chavez went further to state that, ``We have to get rid of any references to privatisation in the constitution we are not going to privatise anything anymore. It was made clear during his speech that the new government will move quickly on further state control of the main and strategic industries of the country.

During his speech Chavez stressed the need to strengthen communal power in Venezuela and that the revolution was just beginning but that no one should be worried about this next stage. Chavez once again used Trotsky to explain his position stating, ``Trotsky said that the revolution was permanent, it never finishes. Lets go with Trotsky. It is Trotsky who is correct that the revolution does not finish.

The final third of his speech concentrated on the political changes that needed to be undertaken in the new period. Chavez once again stressed the need of the importance of the United Socialist Party. ``What we need is unity, said Chavez. ``We are moving towards a united socialist party, which needs to be elected from the base, said Chavez. Also up for attention was the need to combat bureaucracy, inefficiency and corruption in the municipalities, which Chavez said was part of the fourth republic but needed to be eliminated. ``The fourth republic is still alive at the municipal level we need to dismantle it, said Chavez.

In relation to developing a new ``geometry of power in Venezuela Chavez stressed the need for a ``revolutionary explosion of communal power... Communal power needs to be the number one power. Chavez said that this was necessary as part of ``distributing economic, social, political and military power in Venezuela.

A new political structure was envisaged by Chavez which would not only develop and strengthen the communal councils but also work towards developing a federation of communal councils.``we need to create a system of cities which is based on federations, regions which are federal... It is part of building a socialist model which is part of a federal area that is organised by communal power, said Chavez..

``We need to build communal cities, socialist cities, said Chavez. ``They need to be able to make diagnostic assessment of their local area, Chavez continued. ``We need a confederation of communal councils on a national level. We need to transform power to the communal power. Economic, political, power needs to be transferred to these local bodies. So that we can work towards the communal and social state and move away from capitalism, we need to continue to bury it, said Chavez. Another issue the Chavez referred to was a need to efficiently use the government surplus that is distributed the Governors and Mayors. There was also a need to ``put a cap on the public sector salaries. We need to cap the salary of political functionaries we can not be earning 15 million Bolivares, said Chavez. Chavez called on all Mayors and Governors to look at their salaries and suggest what it could be reduced to. In conclusion Chavez said that this was a struggle for a world without imperialism and used the Cuban slogan Hasta la Victoria Siempre. Patria, Socialismo o Muerte, Venceremos!

--Roberto Jorquera is a member of Direct Action and a National Coordinator of the Australia-Venezuela Solidarity Network.

2002: Coup and strike/lockout

"Venezuelan soldiers loyal to Chávez called for massive popular support for a counter-coup. These soldiers later stormed and retook the presidential palace."

There is no evidence that soldiers "stormed the palace", no source for this claim is provided in the wiki article.

There is however evidence for another scenario, as documented in the documentary "The revolution will not be televised":

Upon finding out via foreign media that Chavez had not resigned but was taken captive by the coupsters, Chavez supporters took to the streets in large numbers and marched on the palace. Upon seeing this strong popular support, the Palace guards who had remained loyal to Chavez, and who were present at the palace, took the opportunity to round up the coupsters and thereby retake the palace.

Rpawn 11:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to edit this piece but for some reason, anytime I put in my 'ref', it deletes what follows after in the paragraph. I don't actually want to do this, could somebody help. I've made only made a few edits on Wikipedia before but I've never encountered this problem before, thanks. Delad 01:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"The opposition would later argue that, since Lucas Rincón remained close to the President, there was no coup but a power vacuum once Chávez resigned,[citation needed] despite the succession order being broken."

this makes no sense, and Chavez did not resign anyway. I deleted the sentence. Maybe someone can point out the argument in a better way, adding a source (in case it exists).

Current Inflation

The article downplays the current situation regarding inflation in Venezuela. It is impossible to valuate the Bolivar using normal currency metrics because so many prices are held artificially low. The Venezuelan government has pinned to the exchange rate between their limited supply of US Dollars to the Bolivar. They trade 1 USD for 2150 VEB, but in other markets, the VEB trades at around 4180 for 1 USD. Venezuela could be on the brink of economic collapse, due to declining oil production. Oil exploration and production is capital intensive, but Chavez has devoted the large profits of PDSVA, the state run oil company, to social projects, neglecting the reinvestment necessary to maintain their current oil production level. With the integrated oil majors ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips abandoning the country, it is likely that PDSVA, which may already be on the brink of bankruptcy, will not be able to produce enough oil to support Chavez's regime. This could rationalize his recent scramble to convince other major producers to keep the price of oil high (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=ay2TE8iPHuPs&refer=energy).

Source for the currency data: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aAXxY.Po5b2E&refer=news

16:10, 29 June 2007

This sounds to me like WP:OR. Sources please. (if you don't understand that takings sources for facts and linking them together in a way not done by the source is OR then please take the time to read the policy) Nil Einne 00:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation by the "Economist."-- Citation #124\125

Citation #124 provides no way for a reader to validate the information cited without a paid subscription. Furthermore, the sentence based on this private information fails to name the "analysts" mentioned, nor does it provide quotes substantiating the claims. By not providing adequate access to the cited material, this sentence cannot be substantiated in any meaningful way, and is no better than original research.

Citation #125 was removed mainly because it was addressing cit. #124, and I found it awkward to rewrite the sentence while maintaining a flowing style.

T.C. Craig 20:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. This is just an example of these "negative comment by a RS balanced by rebuttal by another RS" (or sometimes a positive balanced by a negative) this article is full of. Perhaps the best way to NPOV is removing these pairs altogether in order to shorten this article JRSP 21:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You make an excellent point. My main concern is with citing material by sources requiring a paid subscription. Wikipedia in general is rife with sources that cannot be confirmed because the information is inaccessible to the general readership.

In essence, the ability for a reader to critically evaluate a source of information, and the assertion made by such sources, becomes a privilege. Those without such privileges are relegated to the role of spectator; forced to trust another's word that such information not only exists, but is both relevant and correct.

Is there an "authority" that I can lodge this complaint with?

T.C. Craig 21:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

61 AND 64th president?

We have to stop this stupid American custom of saying that one same person is two different Presidents! It just don't make sense. You have to put "Presidency", not "president", if you want to count both numbers. I just fix it for Nestor Kirchner. --200.61.5.142 15:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph requires a better source

The article says:

Between April 9 and 11, the government required all radio and TV stations to transmit numerous speeches by President Chávez, other government officials, and other programming favorable to the Government, even shutting off the signals of the stations who refused, in an attempt to block coverage of the demonstrations and ensuing violence.

The sources for this statement are the US DoS and three journalist organizations, neither one of them can be considered to have "an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight", and therefore must be replaced by a more neutral source or the paragraph must be deleted. One good source is better that four dubious ones. JRSP 12:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments on graph in the "Economic policy" section

The graph clearly states that GDP per capita is based on year 2000 VEB. Comments on the influence of devaluation are original research unless that is supported by analisys from reliable sources. JRSP 02:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

RCTV not closed at all

The news, that RCTV was closed or forbidden to continue its broadcasting by the Venezuela Goverment is a clear Media-Myth. The only thing happened was, that the Venezuelan Goverment did not renew the licence/permit for RCTV to use the public terrestrial frequencies -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_license (Distribution Methods).

RCTV is of course still existing and broadcasting in Venezuela but now only available over cable and satellite (like a lot of TV-Channels around the world). All news stating the Channel got closed or similar are flat wrong. For primary sources just visit the RCTV-Homepage http://www.rctv.net/

I´ll change that Fairfis 22:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the paragraph you removed that quotes him saying "it's better that you go and prepare your suitcase and look around for what you're going to do in March" should be added back, because it shows Chavez taking a bold stance on the issue, and because it was the only quote from him on this in the article. After that it has four quotes from four organizations criticizing the move, those quotes should probably be reduced before Chavez's. Anyone agree/disagree? Questioning81 02:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think wikipedia should be a collection of smack quotes meant to smear the individual, the quote should have no presedence over any other collection of quotes from Chavez re: this case in particular, the whole RCTV case definitely needs a lookover for veracity and accuracy.Flanker 00:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This whole paragraph is excessive and deeply, deeply repeptive.

This action has been condemned by a multitude of international organizations. The International Press Institute stated it as "a flagrant attempt to silence the station's critical voice and in violation of everyone's right 'to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers,' as outlined in Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights" The Committee to Protect Journalists "concluded [Chavez's] government failed to conduct a fair and transparent review of RCTV's concession renewal. The report, based on a three-month investigation, found the government’s decision was a predetermined and politically motivated effort to silence critical coverage." Freedom House has downgraded Venezuela's press freedom rating from "Partly Free" to "Not Free". José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director for Human Rights Watch, called the RCTV case "clearly a case of censorship and the most grave step back in the region since Fujimori," referring to the alleged manipulation of the media by Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori in the 1990s. "Chavez is not renewing the concession to punish a medium for its opposition to the government," Vivanco said. However, as pointed out in an article in The Washington Post, "[f]ree expression is exercised in Venezuela. Another influential television station, Globovision, lambastes the Chavez government frequently, and Caracas boasts a range of newspapers, many of them with an anti-government bent." In a poll conducted by Datanalisis, almost 70 percent of Venezuelans polled opposed the shut-down, but most cited the loss of their favorite soap operas rather than concerns about limits on freedom of expression. Journalists told The Washington Post that access to information is routinely denied, and state advertising is withheld from some opposition media outlets. The government is now planning to close many press relations offices, funneling all information through the communications minister, according to a report in El Universal newspaper.

I recommend it be condensed into

This move was critiscized by international NGO's [sources]

Flanker 00:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. All the text is in the RCTV article anyway. JRSP 03:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on reading the above link and searching the site, these were two separate stations, much like CNN has more than one station. The simple fact is one of those stations were closed down.I'd like to build a consensus and reinsert the material.Die4Dixie 21:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with reinserting the material here. All these details belong in the RCTV article. Besides, RCTV was never closed down, they just reappeared on cable calling themselves RCTV International but with the same programs; all their ads, for instance, are aimed towards the Venezuelan market. There were never two separate stations because RCTV International was not broadcasting in May. JRSP 21:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolution from SF Board of Supervisors

This addition is too specific for the lead. It could be put somewhere else but I'm not sure so I'll leave it here to see if some editor has an idea:

The Board of Supervisors of the City of San Francisco issued a unanimous resolution in August 2002 that commended Chavez's administration for "its commitment to democracy."

JRSP 10:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I still prefer the article to be as devoid of praise and attacks as possible. Maybe in the often fabled "praise of Hugo Chavez" article to balance out the Criticism article.Flanker 16:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

An item mentioned in the article that I would like to discuss

From the main article about Hugo Chavez:

"Chávez was raised a Roman Catholic, although he has had a series of disputes with both the Venezuelan Catholic hierarchy and Protestant groups like the New Tribes Mission. He has traditionally kept his own faith a private matter, but over the course of his presidency, Chávez has become increasingly open to discussing his religious views, stating that both his faith and his interpretation of Jesus' personal life and ideology have had a profound impact on his left-wing and progressivist views. He often invokes God and asks for prayer in speeches, as he did when he asked Venezuelans to pray for Fidel Castro's health."

I would like to know why an anti-religious (and possibly athiest) individual such as Hugo Chavez would ask the Venezuelan people to pray to God for an atheist's (Fidel Castro) health? Because of this obviously contradictory (and possibly false) statement, I think that the line "He often invokes God and asks for prayer in speeches, as he did when he asked Venezuelans to pray for Fidel Castro's health." should be removed from the article. 24.168.46.238 12:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph is well sourced and relevant to the topic of Chávez's personal life. I don't think it should be deleted just because you think Chávez is anti-religious (source?). The source is Washington Post and it says "From here, let's pray to God for Fidel and his recovery, and he's fighting a great battle," Chavez said in a televised speech from the eastern state of Anzoategui. Wikipedia is not for explaining why he said that, just for reporting he did. JRSP 12:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for not reverting, editing, or removing my comment, as you previously did on this discussion page. My source that Chavez is anti-religious is the fact that he has been extremely antagonistic with the Roman Catholic Church and the New Tribes Mission during his tenure as President. Besides, isn't the fact that he embraces Marxist philosophies (including atheism) proof that he is anti-religious? 24.168.46.238 13:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not a source but original research. Anyway, that he asked to pray for Fidel's recovery is a plain fact, suported by reliable sources. JRSP 13:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Being a socialist does not at all prove that he is not also Christian.. which I believe he is... wikipedia even has a page on christian socialism.. 71.16.211.2 02:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The line mentioned doesn't say whether Chavez is sincere, or whether he's a hypocrite, or whatever. It says that he often talks about God or prayer in his speeches, which is factual. If reliable published sources have made this criticism of Chavez, it may be suitable for inclusion in the article, perhaps alongside the information about his religiosity. If it's an undocumented personal opinion, it's not suitable, certainly not for a biography of a living person. Verifiability policy requires sources. Original research / synthesis policy forbids us to stich together disparate facts in order to prove a point, unless of course this has already been done by sources. Have you read this argument advanced in a newspaper, on a website, or anywhere like that? Eleland 16:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Maletinazo

Anyone would like to help introduce into this article the Maletinazo? Maletinazo also needs some sources and cleanup.--F3rn4nd0 ^{(Roger - Out)} 20:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs here yet, Chavez denied involvement and it still hasn't been proven that the suitcase originated in Venezuela. Maybe if a source is found that indicates that the protest in Caracas that the scandal led to was significant, but I still wouldn't think it belongs here. Other opinions? Questioning81 23:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that media reports linking the two were just crude slander; whatever is going on, no evidence has been made public which might suggest anyone's culpability. Eleland 02:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Since nothing has been clarified, I don't think the Maletinazo topic should be added into this article; the closest relationship is between Guido Antonini Wilson (the man behind "El Maletinazo" scandal) and Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA). Recently, the man has been found in the United States and it's currently unknown if he will declare. It's a mediatic conspiration to me, since another scandal arose in Perú with tuna cans showing president Chávez and Ollanta Humala (political propaganda) just to bash the Venezuelan government. Isn't that much of a coincidence? Sorry for my bad english. I'm from Venezuela. EDIT: Oh, additionally, knowing the people of the opposition, the protest held in Caracas lacks of significancy, since its true purpose was mockery and it's nothing serious to be considered. Jale86 02:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation method

Questioning81, please stop changing the citation method that has been used in this artilce for several years. When an existing citation method is in place, other editors should follow it. There is no precedence here for your strange method of adding semi-colons after publisher name, and this will make ref cleanup and consistent formatting harder in the future. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I must be blind, because I don't see it. the ref i inserted was:

<ref>Guardian Business News (April 3, 2006)[http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1745467,00.html "Chávez seeks to peg oil at $50 a barrel"] Retrieved August 21, 2007</ref>

Where is the semi-colon? I am asking partly because I want to learn the correct method, but mostly I am just confused. Thanks in advance for your help. Questioning81 14:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Although the article is well sourced I find it lacking what I think you call controversial information, which is well known in Venezuela and internationally and easily verifiable. A perfect example is the software made by the Bolivarian Venezuelan Government "Maisanta"[5] which is a record of people that signed for the referendum against Chavez meanwhile they claim this to be a process to avoid fraud, one can search any person, born Venezuelan or nationalized foreign, that signed for this referendum, since this database was established more and more Venezuelans are afraid to vote because of future retaliations; if one searches a person in this database it will show personal information as well as the person's political tendency. "Who was Maisanta"[6] Also, it should be included on the article the vocabulary that the President uses on his speeches, the call for persecution on the opposition and the division of the population. Due to these type of speeches there are families divided for years now, meanwhile we can't see positives changes in the country; on the contrary there is a complete anarchy, violence, corruption and death everywhere in the country as Venezuela has never seen before. One can claim that there are positive aspects of the socialist revolution, but are they really good? Let’s go see these missions one on one and not just write down what Mr. Chavez says because I AM living this everyday and I have been there and seen his revolution in the flesh and let me tell you that it is not as you write it. The quality of every single of the missions is zero (0) in a scale from 1 to 10, not to mention that you have to be part of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela to beneficiate from them (if one can call it benefit). The government is imposing a single way of thinking in the whole society and invites everyone that doesn't like it to leave the country, something that I find extremely wrong, to me the duty of the government and president is to assure that all citizens have access to the most basic needs such as water, food, health, security, roads, and so on, something that since 1999 has not being achieved but instead declined all over the country. Instead of blaming people that with hard work has earned their house and savings for the poor conditions of others the government should provide these lower classes with the means of good services and benefits without affecting the rest of the population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guggaman (talk • contribs) 20:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Amen, Guggaman. After having read this protracted, aimlessly-wending mess, I felt it was a perfect example of propaganda in the guise of neutrality. Sure, it is sourced, but that makes it all the more insidious. The thing is larded with opinion cloaked as authority; note the scores of sources which either quote Chavez or his affiliated sources and then provide a third-party source to counterbalance each of those. This gives this entry a semblance of balance but it is still biased because of the liberal use of the aforementioned direct quotes. So what if you source them? How about paraphrasing a few things the guy says, and then deep-six 95% of such references? Further, look at the wide use of weasel words. For example, Google "neo-liberal" and see if those who use this term in the context of describing a capitalist economy are mainstream. Further, why quote what the guy said about Bush? Simply state that he gave a speech which was critical of Bush, don't quote from the guy. With such edits, this article could be 1/2 to 1/3 its present size and in the process provide a better article to those seeking unbiased information about Chavez. As it is now, this thing deters readers and serves mainly as a font of disinformation for this guy's lickspittle appologists. If people like this guy, as I am sure many do, then they should support a major edit/fumigation of this slanted piece; Chavez's success or failure should speak for itself, and not need to rely on claims of soi-disant success made by the very people implementing them. For instance, why should I feel a particular program is a success just because 50,000 (and I question even this number) show up in a stadium to thank their benefactor? Either quote a study showing the program's progress or excise such text. Information regarding these government spending projects could be cut by 80% using such an approach. Another major complaint I have is this article's insistence on placing fawning adjectives next to economic data, such as inflaction rates. Why do this, unless you are trolling for a job as a Chavez speechwriter? Also, I'd like to see much more on the guy's intelectual inspiration. Simply saying his political ideas are inspired by Marx and Lenin tells me nothing. In a word, the essay gives me little upon which to build any serious knowledge about what makes Chavez who he is.NKCTrio 13:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Verify credibility of www.nodo50.org

From article, this paragraph is mainly supported by a site of dubious credibility:

Criticism has also come from many socialist groups and the left in general due to a number of incidents involving Venezuelan workers. In September 2007, one worker was shot whilst protesting for better conditions, and in 2006, 402 working-class citizens died violently in Venezuelan prisons. In addition, more than 60 leaders of trade union and neighbourhood groups were in court because of their participation in strikes, blockades and demonstrations to demand their rights.

[7][8]

JRSP 15:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Articles generally look more unstructured if people are looking "out of the page" We should try to find a picture of Hugo Chavez either looking to the left or straight forward for the main picture. Agree? I'm trying to find a free one now.. ThePhilosophicalZombie 08:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

poverty vs inequality

The article has a lot of info on poverty and the poverty measures issues. However i couldnt find a word about inequality rate. Did it drop or got higher? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leontolstoy2 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed irrelevant information

I've removed the following sentences "In 2005, a group of US senators wrote to the ten biggest fuel companies in the US, asking them to donate some of their record profits as fuel for the disadvantaged. Only CITGO, the US subsidiary of the Venezuelan state oil company, replied." This is irrelevant and unsourced. Hunttthetroll 17:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)huntthetroll

I've also made few small changes to the lead and "Early Life" paragraphs to maintain NPOV, including the removal of a poorly written sentence that did not properly cite a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunttthetroll (talk • contribs) 17:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

¿Le drogaron el agua o de veras es imbecil?

De veras que a Chavez le cuesta admitir que hace pendejadas de ves en cuando. Como es eso que se pone a interrumpir estupidamente a Zapatero el opositor de Aznar que ganó las elecciones en España. Aznar no tiene nada que ver con el gobierno español. De veras que Hugo Chavez hace cada pendejada.