Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 2

This archive page covers approximately the dates between Dec. 2004 and Jun. 2005.

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

---

7 2004: Yet another coup in preparation?

When the new year comes, can we delete this entire passage? I have always had a problem with it and it would appear that nothing is ever going to come from it. TDC 18:05, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead and do it now. 172 20:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be deleted, it's good info, although in a perfect world it would be its own article of some sort and there'd just be a brief mention here in the bio article. Everyking 01:48, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps an incorporation of relavent material back into the article would be appropriate. TDC 02:03, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

1st Jan 2005:Bolivarian Revolution - redirected? still exists?

Why is [[Revoluci%F3n_Bolivariana]] and Bolivarian revolution directed here?? There seems to be a talk page for the article with strong anti-chavez sentiments.. but no actual artcle . I wpould like to link Hugo Chavez with them. Whats going on?? max rspct 20.38 1st Jan 2005 (utc)

It had been a brief, stub article, but was redirected here. I've restored the stub, so you can write about the Bolivarian Revolution as an independent subject if you like. Everyking 21:10, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let's be clear

Chávez had precipitated the crisis. And was realy wise to do this IMO ! The polemics about this is ideology : If you write that "Chávez wanted a clash.... ": He is the mean guy!. However, was PDSVA's management good for Venezuela ? Ericd 22:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

source citation - "not to obey opposition officials"

In a national radio address quoted in The New York Times, Chávez warned Venezuelans not to obey opposition officials, stating that "we can intervene in any police force in any municipality, because we are not going to permit any tumult or uproar. Order has arrived in Venezuela."

What date and page did this run on? It's pretty hard to confirm whether this is quoted accurately or in context if we have to search the entire corpus of the New York Times. DanKeshet 04:13, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

I don't have anything to do with this quotation, but I happened on this page and I have full-text search access to the NYT, so I found the source:

• Larry Rohter, "Venezuelan Congress Stripped of Its Last Remaining Powers," New York Times p. A11 (Aug. 31, 1999).

The article begins:

A Constitutional Assembly loyal to President Hugo Chavez stripped the opposition-controlled Congress of its last remaining powers today, taking revenge against legislators who had pledged to defy a decree last week that declared a "legislative emergency" and gave the assembly virtually unlimited powers.

The assembly acted after Congressional leaders had said, as they exercised some of their few remaining powers over the weekend, that they would refuse to authorize any Government budget expenditures, including money for the assembly. They also said they would withhold the legal permission required for Mr. Chavez to leave the country on two state visits this week.

Members of the Constitutional Assembly called the threats a provocation and said they would retaliate unless Congress retreated.

Although the expansion of the "legislative emergency" decree today does not formally dissolve the Senate and Chamber of Deputies, its effect is the same. All of Congress's responsibilities and powers have now been transferred to the Constitutional Assembly, which was elected last month with the mandate to rewrite the Constitution.

Legislators are explicitly prohibited from holding official meetings of any sort.

The section with the quotation is:

The assembly is widely expected to consider another move this week against a branch of Government, handing down a decree that would declare a state of "executive emergency" and allow the panel to dismiss the governors of the 23 states and hundreds of mayors.

A special committee appointed by the assembly would then screen state and local officials, replacing those who fail the inquiry with "regional governing councils composed of three or five members who enjoy high prestige and honor."

In addition, some members of the assembly have suggested moving to take control the largest labor union. On Sunday, in his weekly radio program, Mr. Chavez suggested that he was contemplating similar action against the police if they obeyed the instructions of local officials who are members of the opposition.

"We can intervene in any police force in any municipality, because we are not going to permit any tumult or uproar," he said. "Order has arrived in Venezuela."

As the Constitutional Assembly prepared to vote today on the decree, the Speaker of the lower house of Congress, Henrique Capriles, filed a petition with the Supreme Court, asking for a ruling on the legality of the assembly's original "legislative emergency" decree, adopted last Wednesday. He argued that "in Venezuela, no organ exists above the Constitution," but conceded that the court, now in recess, might decide against him.

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled, 8 to 6, that the Constitutional Assembly did indeed have the authority to seize the judicial system under its "judicial emergency."

That led Chief Justice Cecilia Sosa Gomez to resign, saying the tribunal had "simply committed suicide in order to avoid being assassinated."

(Emphasis mine.) I hope this is helpful. 18.87.0.80 02:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Saddam "a brother"

I'm having problems with this claim (which I was trying to find the original context (or even date) for). Yes, it's often repeated - but never (and I've spent an hour trawling LexisNexis) with a time/place reference. The claim (in the usual nonspecific gossipy, "ooh, d'you know what he once called Saddam?" way) first appears in AP on 5 August 2000. As far as I can tell, it is based on a twisting of Chavez's statement calling OPEC leaders "our Arab brothers" (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 30/7/2000). This is supported by the fact that nobody (eg US spokesmen) is ever cited as responding to this claim; it certainly doesn't seem an independent source of controversy, outside the occasional media repetition of the unsourced claim. I may be wrong - but this is my conclusion. Rd232 20:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Given that the item has been repeated by multiple respected news sources, it must stay in some form unless a definitive counter-source can be produced saying that the quote is either fabricated or taken completely beyond context (e.g., if it were only based on "Arab brothers"). Lacking that, we should report the judgement of the reporters who have reported the info. Now, if you want to add to that more observation to the effect of "Chavez has been reported to have said this, but the entire speech/context is unavailable" go ahead and do so. I'm not going to add it myself because the one time I tried to add extra "context" it was just used as a justification to nitpick and remove the whole thing (rather than further edit to suit).--67.101.66.159 13:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Repeated" being the operative word. The lack of any context (by which, as I made clear above, I mean any reference, however vague, to when/where he was supposed to have said this) is a constant, and it is pretty obvious that later pieces are just picking up the equally vague AP claim. There are actually quite a few pieces on Chavez mentioning Hussein and omitting the "brother" ref - either because the authors thought it meaningless gossip, or because they couldn't source it properly either.Rd232 20:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe you missed my point, which was: the report by the AP, a well-respected organization, in absence of any retraction or counter-report, is more than solid enough to merit inclusion.--67.101.66.159 22:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Given everything I have said above, I can only disagree. And it's unreasonable to expect a retraction on such a minor issue which caused no controversy or comment of any kind.Rd232 08:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's been mentioned all over news sources since the AP reported it, as even a google search will show. That's much more than no comment of any kind. And I would even say that many of those mentions consider it controversial. We can haggle about how controversial and add language to educate on the background of the statement. Given the many mentions of the statement as the fact that people remember it to this day, I would say I've got a prima facie case that this did cause comment of some kind. Not that by arguing this I mean to imply that the statement isn't interesting in and of itself, even if it had been uttered with no one around. --67.101.66.159 13:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(a) The claim isn't true. It's a twisting of the "Arab brothers" comment. See my initial statement at the top of this section. (b) The claim has not been commented on by any non-media sources, such as the White House, or indeed anyone else. (c) Even the considerable number of media sources that repeat the claim do so without comment; they don't seem to consider it "controversial" either. It's just gossip.Rd232 12:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think you are completely wrong on a) and c), and b) is debatable (perhaps we have different definitions of "non-media sources"). What would would appreciate is for you to constructively add what explanation you feel is needed to the article itself, rather than trying to sweep this under the rug there. I am sure that there is some sort of structure (additional explanations, moving things to a daughter article, etc.) that will report this from a NPOV and prevent the impression that information is being censored or covered up. --67.101.66.159 13:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Equally respectfully, I have spent an hour proving (a) to my satisfaction (I'm a researcher, it's what I do, and why I have acess to LexisNexis database of all major media), and if you have any counter-examples to either (b) or (c), please cite them. (I doubt we have different definitions of non-media.) Ergo, we have a dubious claim which no-one significant outside the media world has repeated or commented on, and no-one within the media world has commented on (they have merely repeated it). Under these circumstances, the claim does not belong in an encyclopedia article. The job of an editor is to exclude as to much to include; otherwise we could replace this article with a link to Google. Remember, we're writing this article for readers, not for ourselves. You have to justify why readers should read a dubious claim which no-one has commented on, or even worse, why they should read a paragraph about the claim and its dubiousness, which, if we put it in full, would invariably lead readers to ask "So why the f*** are you wasting my time with this s***?" Rd232 18:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And he is known to frequently call fellow leaders "brothers," so this is hardly an unusual comment coming from Chavez. A non gossipy way of reporting this would be to refer to their strong common interests in high oil prices. Beyond reporting the U.S. reaction to the visit (not the comment-- since a response to the comment cannot be found), nothing else is really worth mentioning in this article. 172 18:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So if you want readers to understand why Chavez referred to Hussein as a "brother," then please add it. That's how wikipedia works. I tried to read your mind once on what you wanted and I'm not going to do it again. Please participate, don't obstruct. And please, please, skip the threats and assume good faith.--67.101.66.159 22:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just because it was mentioned in AP does not mean that it warrants mentioning. I mean, if this article were to mention everything pertaining to Chavez mentioned in AP wires, it would be thousands of pages long. 172 06:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because it was reported by the AP means it's likely to be true. A proclaimed defender of the common man referring to a butcher of the common man as a "brother" is what makes it interesting. Now, if you feel that there is additional explanation that ought to be given as to what qualifies people to be brothers in Chavez's eyes, then explain it in the article. As to how it's explained and how it's ultimately structured in the article or a daughter article is your call (remember, wikipedia is not paper). But, IMHO, the silent omission does damage to the attempt at presenting things from a NPOV. It makes it look like there's a coverup.--67.101.66.159 13:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not everything AP reports is true, even when specifics are given (and, to reiterate for the nth time, even after much research I can't even find the DECADE in which the supposed comment is meant to have been made!). Example: AP retracts claim Bush supporters booed good wishes for Clinton's health. More generally, your apparent faith in the mainstream media may be misplaced - a healthy scepticism is always useful. See organisations like [1], [2], [3], [4], etc. (By the way, if you're going to stick around and contribute to Wikipedia, do get yourself a username. It's (excuse the pun) hard to address an IP.)Rd232 12:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, what I am *not* saying that I am completely satisfied that Hugo Chavez actually referred Saddam Hussein as a brother in the way that Americans might use that phrase. But what I *am* saying is that the AP *has* reported it, and it *has* made it all over the web, and thus wikipedia should mention it. Yes, a real world editor of a paper encyclopedia has a job to keep things succinct. But as I have learned, a *wikipedia* editor has an additional obligation to include facts from a NPOV, trying to be as specific as possible rather than sweeping things under the rug. So in this case it should be included that the AP, a major news organization, has reported that Chavez referred to Hussein as "brother". You can add all you want about the specifics of how this AP report may have twisted Chavez's meaning, and how no one other than internet commentators seemed to care about the quote, etc. And you can put it wherever you want in the main article or the daughter article. I don't care how. But it's got to be available *somewhere* given its widespread repetition and given that it deals with two major world leaders. I hate to keep just adding the same sentence back in, but I have no choice in lieu of either of you (the two objectors) contributing some other more detailed explanation of the item. --67.101.66.159 20:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)