Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

his religion is ambiguous

in the main box at the start of the page his religion is called roman catholic but later in the article about his personal life he comes across as thinking of himself as "christian". i vote that the roman catholic be change to christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peppermintschnapps (talk • contribs) 22:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal life section says he was "raised a Roman Catholic" so I think we should keep the specific denomination instead of changing to a generic "Christian" JRSP (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Media Suppression

I suggest a thread on Chavez persecuting all non goverment controlled media such as Glbovision.http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/06/05/venezuela.tvstation.owner/index.html.Tannim1 (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Daughter article Media representation of Hugo Chávez contains a paragraph on this issue, the cnn article is used as a reference there. JRSP (talk) 01:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No objection to it there as long as it figures prominently because it is major component in press freedom in Venezuela.Tannim1 (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

But you are stating that Chávez government is persecuting **all** non government media; however, your source only mentions Globovision and RCTV. JRSP (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Has not Hugo shut down all the rest that don't folow faithfully the Bolviarian revolution?Tannim1 (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "folow faithfully the Bolviarian revolution". Most of the Venezuelan TV stations are privately-owned. JRSP (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Would this acceptible Globovision is the only non free media outlet in opposition to Chavez? http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/breakingnews/Media_s-freedom-in-Venezuela-a-top-concern-at-Inter-American-Press-Association-forum.htmlTannim1 (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Winnipeg Free Press says Globovision is "the last opposition-aligned TV channel on the open airwaves". Other sources say "strongly critical" [1] or "staunchly anti-Chavez"[2] or "stridently anti-Chávez"[3]. If Globovision were actually the only media outlet in opposition to Chávez, the adjectives would be unnecessary. In fact, all these sources (including Winipeg free press) explicitly say that there are other media in Venezuela opposing Chávez. JRSP (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Investor's Business Daily

There seems to be sporadic use of Investor's Business Daily as a source. In my opinion, it is a rag and should not be used.71.198.176.141 (talk) 04:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Richard Peterson71.198.176.141 (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. You should just take them out. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected, IP accounts can't edit it. Richard will have to register and wait 4 days. Otherwise, you'll have to wait for a registered editor to do it, but you'd need to be more specific: What will we do with the parts based on IBD? Delete, rewrite, use another source? JRSP (talk) 04:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

361,000 dollars for the purchase of clothing and footwear for Chavez

Chavez increased by 638% the President's budget (MAYE PRIMERA - Caracas - 26/10/2009 El País)
--84.137.87.217 (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit needed third paragraph

In the third paragraph there's a small typo. Sorry if this isn't the correct place to request this edit.

the trouble is the text of this link: government of the United Statesstated

should be: government of the United States stated

Thanks!

MilkFilledAndroid (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)MilkFilledAndroid

Done! The Four Deuces (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Huge Chavez of black Venezuelan Descent?

Where is the evidence, which is not in the article, of Hugo Chavez's African descent, and is it just a claim by him, or is there a black ancestor to prove it? JohnHistory (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

If there is no evidence and it is not in the article then it is not an issue. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Chavez is tri-racial. Having Spanish, Indigenous, and African ancestry. You will find that many Latin Americans are very mixed in terms of race. 71.180.84.156 (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez is pushing the Jews out of Venezuela

This Israeli site: [Israel] tells that Hugo Chavez's policies are pushing the Jews out of Venezuela.Agre22 (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

- Citing your source, it look's quite differently...: " Venezuelan Jews say that as citizens of a state in which many have lost faith in the police and judicial system, they fear random violence far more than anti-Semitic attacks. They consistently cite crime as their main source of anxiety." So this entry should just be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.123.102.57 (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Extreme bias

There's just one mention of the word criticism on the whole article. As a Venezuelan, living in Caracas, I can attest that this article is terribly unbiased. Clearly not all facts are being shown, there's not even a mention of Chavez personal friends, purchases, and the controversy surrounding him, and him personally. What happened to him purchasing a plane roughly the size of the Air Force one, for himself and himself only? What happened to him supporting the FARC, what happened to him telling Americans to "fuck off", calling them "Yankees de mierda"? Why isn't even his defeat at the 2008 reform, which he then implemented anyway, listed, or if that's asking for much, mentioned?

But just to make matters worse, the article is locked. I know that finding an impartial source regarding Chavez is something extremely difficult, but let's not dumb down well stated facts. People go to Wikipedia looking for information, and people believe this information. If Wikipedia administration wants to be responsible for releasing misinformation to the masses, then so be it, but at least don't do it while claiming you're void of any personal opinion. If whoever reads this wants to start modifying this article, then begin by saying that it's Chavez mission to deliberately misinform international media so he sells more petrol and so financing leftist movements around Latin America and enlarge the coffers of his ministers. Instead of doing things so much more trivial like, you know, fixing the huge power crisis [[4]], reducing the rampant crime [[5]], or just merely stopping the ridiculous corruption that takes place on his government [[6]]

I'm just a badmouthing "esqualido", though, ain't I? --190.72.38.39 (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

very bad wiki article

Did chavez's propaganda office write this article? There is absolutely no balance in this piece; in fact, if a person read this article without knowing who Chavez is, they would probably think he's the next messiah. This guy is one of the most ruthless autocrats of our times and yet there is no mention of any of his many abuses. Wikipedia has allowed a small army of blatantly subjective editors with clear individual motivations ruin its core mission. This article needs to be deleted and redone; and everyone that was associated with putting together the current version needs to be banned ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.235.182 (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

whitewash

As it stands this page is a complete whitewash of Mr. Chavez, a puff piece, incredibly biased and NPOV in favor of him. Something needs to be done about it; this page is one of the thousands of examples of why Wikipedia got a reputation for being somewhat dodgy on the issue of accuracy and fairness. This talk page is another good example. George Bush negotiated with Osama bin Laden? When? He never did. Yet apparently some believe this, and believe that it is justification for hiding under the rug Mr. Chavez's deep connections to that collection of brutal war criminals known as FARC. The section on the media is completely biased towards Chavez; someone with no knowledge of the situation whose only source of information was this page would believe that the media outlets Chavez has shut down or tried to shut down deserved it because they were participating in a coup against Chavez, according to some, none of whom are exactly neutral observers. RCTV probably was, but that doesn't mean all the outlets Chavez has gone after were, or that his repression of media is justified.

No kidding, this is rediculous. It doesnt mention ANY of the contraversy that is associated with him, and there is a ton, nor does it mention any of the naked power grabs he's done to systematically shut down opponents and jail or exile them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.3.142 (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This page needs cleaned up, as I said it's an example of how Wikipedia has fallen from its peak when it did really seem that it would become a respectable source of reliable information. That didn't happen, Wikipedia does not exactly have a good rep for reliability, and pages like this are why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.26.194 (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez & terrorism

How come there's no mention here to Hugo Chavez's warmth towards narcoterrorists from FARC? Rd232? JRSP? Or will we pretend it never happened?Alekboyd (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Please check WP:WTA#Words_that_label, using terms as "narcoterrorist" is not NPOV. Said that, the US government concerns about Chávez-FARC relations are already mentioned in the "criticism" section. JRSP (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

FARC is considered as a terrorist organization by all European countries, Canada and the USA.Alekboyd (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

And? Is there a problem with that? Didn't Bush negotiate with Osama Bin Ladden? Isn't Obama and the actual US, killing people in Irak, Afganistan and Palestine? Obilivion (Sith Holocron) —Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC).

The issue here is Hugo Chavez relationship with FARC. Whatever Bush did with Bin Laden has got nothing to do with the fact that Chavez has a relationship with a narcoterrorist organization. As per NPOV JRSP, a visit to your contribution page shows how hollow your mentions to NPOV are.Alekboyd (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite right on the need to discuss the FARC. It is quite incredible that the foreign policy section says notion about his relationship to the FARC. Recall that Interpol judged the files captured from Reyes to be genuine: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051504153.html (Cerberus (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

They should be a heading on main page of Hugo's support of terrorism and his human rights violations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tannim1 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The administrator of this page has a biased view of the topic, Wikipedia needs to review this. The content lacks the following verifiable data about Hugo Chavez:

- Chávez's support for the FARC has been known and tolerated for some time. Indeed, Venezuela has been harboring the group's leaders, who have operated openly within Venezuela's borders. Chávez's ban on overflights by U.S. planes participating in antinarcotics operations in Colombia and his government's refusal to cooperate with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration have also benefited the FARC immeasurably. It is no coincidence that during Chávez's presidency, Venezuela has turned into a major conduit for the transshipment of cocaine:

- In 2008 Chavez asked Europe to take FARC off the list of terrorist organizations: He argued, "I say this even though somebody might be bothered by it: the FARC and the ELN are not terrorist groups. They are armies, real armies ... that occupy a space in Colombia." He added that the two groups' "insurgent forces" have a goal, "a project," that is "Bolivarian" and that "we respect."

There is also few information on the dramatic economic situation of Venezuela in 2009:

- Leftist President Hugo Chavez called on Venezuelans on Wednesday to stop singing in the shower and to wash in three minutes because the oil-exporting nation is having problems supplying water and electricity. Venezuela has suffered several serious blackouts in the past year because of rapidly growing demand and under-investment, which has been aggravated by a drop in water levels in hydroelectric dams that provide most of its energy.

- Hugo Chavez has shown poor math skills. In a speech, he claimed that 7X8 = 52 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zagcKHmFoW4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Specialcontributor75 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is the 'criticism of Hugo Chávez' section?

The original page suffered an overhaul and an entire section devoted to criticism of Hugo Chávez policies and approaches was apparently deleted. I couldn't find it anywhere. Is Wikipedia going to close its eyes to the verifiable, sizeable portion of people who do not support him or his policies, and should have their accounts published for the world to see? Or is it, a work of pseudo-intelectuals, left-wing sympatizers who'd rather delete this material instead of keeping a really objective approach? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabreu (talk • contribs) 14:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

^ THIS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.8.122 (talk) 11:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. Where is that section?--Andrewire (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I checked waybackmachine for the old material that was deleted. There isn't anything listed for this url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_chavez. Unless someone can provide the old url for Hugo Chavez, the best course would be to re-create the section. I must assume the URL was changed causing the waybackmachine not to find the page? There is so much negative material on Chavez but the whole article hardly mentions that he has almost completed making himself dictator for life of Venezuela. --Ftsmallwood (talk) 03:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You can certainly add that material, now :-) Be careful, though - it would be "critics claim" or some similar wording for the "dictator for life" thingie (I assume you're referring to that referendum a couple of years back). Xavexgoem (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A separate section for criticism (and/or praise) is not the best idea, see WP:STRUCTURE. Please keep in mind the WP:BLP policy, particularly WP:BLP#Criticism and praise. Well sourced, relevant and properly attributed criticism/praise should better be added in the relevant section (or daughter article): presidency, foreign policy, economical policy, etc. JRSP (talk) 04:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There should be a section including arresting political opponents, closing down media and inteferings in several nations internal affairs.Tannim1 (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have located the separate page under "Criticism of Hugo Chavez": it was deleted because it was empty. Essentially: A "criticism" section was created because there was too much information, and the resulting page was so negative for Mr. Chavez image it was deemed biased (what did they expect from a 'Criticism' page for Mr. Chavez?), and apparently they moved the relevant criticism to separate articles -leaving just an empty page- and there doesn't seem to be any way of checking what it said. In the process, they transformed Mr. Chavez in a modern Robin Hood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Au leon (talk • contribs) 01:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The valid criticisms were merged into the various articles about Chavez. However most of the detail in the article was unhelpful and basically was all sourced to neoconservative opinion pieces. What is needed is informed criticism of the Chavez regime from reliable sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think The Four Deuces should be allowed anywhere near Wikipedia articles regarding Hugo Chavez, the fact that the "Criticism" section is still nowhere is unacceptable, as is his explanation that "valid criticisms were merged into various articles about Chavez." This is dishonest, criticism of the man should be available on the page about him, not on other pages. I will be contacting the appropriate parties here at Wikipedia about how you have been behaving in regards to Chavez. There are absolutely no links on Chavez's page to criticisms of him; in fact, the word "criticism" only appears once, in the introduction part of the article, a perfect opportunity to link to such criticisms, but apparently that opportunity was passed up. Perhaps because criticisms of Hugo Chavez are not on a single page, but scattered around? Perhaps in a deliberate effort to make them hard to find? How odd that there are no links whatsoever to any other Wikipedia pages criticizing him on his own page. Just where are these valid criticisms? Link them please, since you are asserting that they do in fact exist somewhere here at Wikipedia.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.26.194 (talk) 07:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC) 

Past Medical History

Under the "1992 coup" heading, the text describes how Chavez became blind in one eye because of a "carnosity" which, according some sites from an internet search, are "a fleshy excrescence." However, this term is not an accepted medical term. A search of "carnosity" at www.emedicine.com, a respected reference source authored by the medical community, returns no items. Similarly, neither a search in Merriam-Webster's online dictionary nor medical dictionary have listings for this word. It is possible that "carnosity" is an older medical term that is no longer used. Since "carnosity" is no longer found on a respected professional medical reference site, it is not a label which is used in the medical community for either communication or medical documentation. Therefore, I recommend that, at least, it be replaced with "eye disease." (My theory is that Chavez had a pinquecula that developed into a pterygium.)Crucifiedego (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Presumably the word is used because it appears in the source. If you do not like the use of the term you should find a source that gives an accepted medical term. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Relation with Carlos the Jackal

In a well-known address, published throughout the world in dozens, if not hundreds of sources, came the following blurb, rv by the censors trying to clean up Chavez' image. Chavez, however, had plenty of time to refute this and refused to do so. So he either said it or he did not say it. What is the position of the censors on this one. Did he do/say this or not?

"Chavez is known to have had a sporadic correspondence with convicted terrorist Carlos the Jackal from the latter's prison cell. Chávez replied, with a letter in which he addresses Carlos as a "distinguished compatriot". On June 1, 2006, Chávez referred to him as his "good friend" during a meeting of OPEC countries held in Caracas.

On 20 November, 2009, Chávez publicly defended Carlos, saying that "he is wrongly considered to be a bad guy and is to be praised as a key revolutionary fighter, instead.""

If, of course, it was a matter of obtaining the "proper" footnote, it could have been left their for a few minutes or days or even weeks until one was obtained. If it is false, of course, deleting it was the proper thing to do. Since it was censored out of hand with no time given to furnish a proper citation, I am assuming that the censor's position is that the report is false. That would be the only excuse for removing material that is generally thought to be accurate while temporarily lacking a valid citation. Student7 (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

And, oh, what paper, television or website would you accept as a WP:RS to support this statement? Student7 (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the other censored portion was on Amin, etc. Also made national headlines around the world, but "isn't worth reporting here."

"Comments on Mugabe, Ahmadinejad, and Amin

In a speech in which he praised Carlos the Jackal on November 20, 2009, Chavez hailed Presidents Robert Mugabe and Ahmadinejad as "brothers", and praised former president of Uganda, Idi Amin as a "nationalist, a great patriot.""

At least this censor did not deny that he said it. What this censor questioned was whether every comment he ever made on everybody should be in his bio? That is a valid question. The answer is no, unless that person is extremely famous or, infamous, as in this case and secondly, that it received headlines around the world which was in shock.

I can appreciate that this is highly embarrassing for someone trying to defend his bio in Wikipedia. You either think that this is a great man and support everything he says or you don't. If you do not, then perhaps you should allow people to publish the truth when it takes up international headlines. Politicians often make off-the-cuff remarks which they regret and withdraw later. I agree that these off-the-cuff remarks should not be reported. But this was not the case here. Chavez had the opportunity to retract them and declined to do so.

If however, you accept your man, then why can't you accept everything that he says? Everything that he says should be reportable. If you are ashamed of it, why are you trying to delete it, when everyone else thinks that it is important? Student7 (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the difficulties in WP is determining what weight if any to give to current events. While these statements perhaps should be notable, they do not appear to have attracted any attention beyond being reported when they were first made. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You are defending only one of the entries. The other was deleted for (supposedly) WP:RS. If not that, of course, something else.

Also, few people make worldwide news and then not have anything in their articles, and the bios then just quote in-house press releases? Come on! Student7 (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the media are not reporting the story beyond the original incident. Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs etc. are saying nothing, let alone MSM. So it is unimportant. If you think this issue is important you should phone them and ask why they are not discussing it. Who got to them? I would like to know. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean with the Media? you only mention right wing media in the US. Wikipedia, English version, is not an US entity, is a worldwide entity. This incident was reported on Le Monde and in the New York Times . The Four Deuces, you need to be neutral on this and you are not being neutral, how many people need to report it to be qualified as "important" by you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.103.169 (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not accuse other editors of not being neutral and remember to sign your posts. Hundreds or even thousands of articles have been written about Hugo Chavez and there is not enough room in the article to mention all of them. How do we determine which stories to record here? If there is any reaction to the stories beyond the initial reporting and the story is kept alive by continuing media interest then we report it. If the story is reported when it happens and attracts no further attention then we ignore it. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The "relation" is basically a letter in 1999, and a couple of comments in 2006 and 2009. I think those isolated facts hardly deserve a mention, even less a whole section devoted to this. JRSP (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Which Chavez has not denied nor repudiated. Not too many "world leaders" with an open friendship with a convicted terrorist. For this, the Venezuelan ambassador was summoned on the carpet in Paris by the French government. I don't know how often the (say), American ambassador is summoned and an explanation demanded. Either so often, it is ignored, or so seldom, I can't remember the last time! BTW, the French did not receive an acceptable explanation. This will make the textbooks in diplomatic history books, but we are not going to report it here? !!! Why not? Student7 (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with JRSP that we should not create a whole section with the title "Carlos the Jackal". However, this is not an isolated fact and should be included on the "Hugo Chavez and terrorism" section proposed above. We could name the section "Hugo Chavez relationships/opinion with/on terrorists, terrorism organizations and countries on the sponsors of terrorism list" or something like that. On this section we can include the Jackal content, and talk about Chavez and FARC, ELN, Cuba, Iran... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Specialcontributor75 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We cannot talk of an "open friendship", both men have never met, their only contact was a letter and its reply. If I wrote Chávez a letter, I would get a reply too; Venezuelan public servants are bound by law to reply to all citizen's written requests. Regarding the summoning of the ambassador, I understand that France stated their point of view, Chávez reiterated his own point of view and that's all; there has not been any notable consequence on the relations between both countries. JRSP (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Student7 commented: "This will make the textbooks in diplomatic history books, but we are not going to report it here? !!! " Well it has now been 10 years since the letter was written (1999-2009), so the textbooks would have been written by now. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No, his support was recently announced, along with his support of others (Amin, etc.). It was that incident that precipitated the recent demand for an explanation by France. France was not referring to old correspondence but to current public support. It is the recent incident that will be in the diplomatic histories. Also, one may perceive that France takes words seriously when made by heads of state, as do most nations. They are not "simply words" to be stated today and forgotten tomorrow.

Also, the correspondence was ongoing. One letter may be public, but the reports refer to an "ongoing" correspondence. so probably more than one letter.

If Chavez supports his statements and stands by them, what is the problem here? If you like Chavez, you would certainly want to see the words published that he uttered. If you don't like him, and disagree with him, I can understand why you might not want words that he stands by, omitted. Student7 (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that neutrality and weight apply. A story that does not receive extended coverage is not notable, and we should not include or exclude material based on whether we support or oppose him. I neither support nor oppose Chavez so those arguments do not mean anything to me. If you feel that this story is underreported in the media then you should contact them and complain. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces: Please review Wikipedia's pollicy on this matter:

- "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." . There are well documented-reliable sources on this topic(Le Monde and The New York Times are named above). They also talk about it in Foreign Policy Magazine , The Guardian , NPR . Also, the Jackal letter is here http://www.analitica.com/bitblio/hchavez/carta_chacal.asp - Your point about not having enough room is kind of weird. I could not find a mention on space limits for articles on Wikipedia's guidelines. This is not print media. If you look at other biographies, like Tiger Woods, you will find more content than in this one.

JRSP: I agree, we should not talk about an "open friendship". What the sources describe is the opinion of Hugo Chavez on Carlos the Jackal, which seems to be similar to his opinion of FARC. Also, your "notable consequence" argument is just your point of view. We should stick to the facts that can be supported by reliable sources. So I suggest presenting the content like this:

Hugo Chavez & terrorism

Hugo Chavez has expressed his opinion on the following terrorists(persons and organizations):

Carlos the Jackal In 2009, in a speech to international socialist politicians, Mr Chavez said Carlos, a Venezuelan, was not a terrorist but a key revolutionary fighter. He said he believed Carlos had been unfairly convicted, and called him "one of the great fighters of the Palestine Liberation Organisation".The Venezuelan leader has previously called Carlos a friend, and is reported to have exchanged letters with him in the past. , The French government reacted by summoning the Venezuelan embassador in Paris and demanding explanations

Idi Amin Mr. Chavez has also expressed his opinion on Idi Amin. He said "We thought he was a cannibal.. I don't know, maybe he was a great nationalist, a patriot." Idi Amin seized power in 1971. About 300,000 people were killed during his eight-year rule

Farc - Chávez's support for the FARC has been known and tolerated for some time. Indeed, Venezuela has been harboring the group's leaders, who have operated openly within Venezuela's borders. Chávez's ban on overflights by U.S. planes participating in antinarcotics operations in Colombia and his government's refusal to cooperate with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration have also benefited the FARC immeasurably. It is no coincidence that during Chávez's presidency, Venezuela has turned into a major conduit for the transshipment of cocaine

- In 2008 Chavez asked Europe to take FARC off the list of terrorist organizations: He argued, "I say this even though somebody might be bothered by it: the FARC and the ELN are not terrorist groups. They are armies, real armies ... that occupy a space in Colombia." He added that the two groups' "insurgent forces" have a goal, "a project," that is "Bolivarian" and that "we respect."

-Later on in 2008, Chavez urged Farc to end their rebellion "The guerrilla war is history," he said. "At this moment in Latin America, an armed guerrilla movement is out of place.". This was considered a surprise comment. Colombian Interior minister Carlos Holguin said the statement from Mr Chavez, a "great ally" of the rebels, was a "surprising". statement —Preceding unsigned comment added by Specialcontributor75 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned above, there are hundreds or even thousands of stories about Chavez that have been published through the years and the problem is determining which ones to include and how much coverage to provide. Basically stories that get a lot of coverage beyond the initial story should be reported but if we were to cover them all this article would be too long. (It is already 49 KB). If you believe this story is important then you should contact news media and complain that they are not providing sufficient coverage. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces: If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources it has a place on the article according to wikipedia guidelines. Major news organizations in most western countries have covered the incident. If you do an online search, there is even mention of this in Bangladeshi and Chinese media. Also, this has been widely covered in Latin American and Spanish media. Should we request mediation for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.17.253.46 (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The mere mention of an incident in the press is a necessary condition (verifiability) but not sufficient for inclusion in wikipedia, this applies particularly to recent events. Notability is not temporary and the long term importance of this event is difficult to assess at this moment. Anyway, WP is an encyclopedia, not a news wire and articles do not have a time limit so we can wait and see how important this event can be. In the meantime, there are lots of material about the subject to work with, including books and scholarly papers that are better suited than news reports for the purpose of writing an encyclopedic article. JRSP (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is from a story reported this week in The Epoch Times: "Venezuela is bringing in thousands of Russian missiles, rocket launchers, and tanks as part of a massive military buildup against Colombia. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced the move on state television this week amid growing tensions between the two South American countries."[7] This is an important story and there are stories of equal or greater stories about Chavez published all the time. But we cannot add all the Chavez stories to the article but must wait until we see how notable they become. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

We need mediation on this. Your definition of "notable" is your personal opinion. You first argued that the opinion of Hugo Chavez on the Jackal was not being covered by the media. Now that we listed all the sources you are changing your argument. The facts about the Jackal, Idi Amin and FARC are verifiable and notable as we can see from the global coverage of the issue. The example you bring about the military build up should also be on the article, if it isnt already.--Specialcontributor75 (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

My "personal opinion" is that we should follow the guideline for notability. If you want to include the two stories already mentioned, what about these, all of which occured recently:

• "Chavez critics say the president is using prosecutors as pawns to bring trumped up criminal charges against his opponents".[8]
• "Hugo Chavez, is battling against power cuts and water shortages by telling people to stop singing in the showers."[9]
• "Brazilian senators postponed... the vote on Venezuela's incorporation to Mercosur following a heated debate... when the opposition strongly criticized Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez".[10]

If you go back over the years, you will find hundreds more stories of equal notability: Chavez calls Bush the Devil, calls Obama an ingnoramus, threatens to free Hondurus, etc. You really need to read books or academic papers about Chavez to determine what is notable. Otherwise the article becomes a long list of news events. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW your remark "You first argued that the opinion of Hugo Chavez on the Jackal was not being covered by the media" is incorrect and your conclusions on your misunderstanding may be seen as a personal attack. Please assume good faith. My first comment above was: "The problem is that the media are not reporting the story beyond the original incident". Yes it was covered by the media. No that does not establish notability. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Carlos story, as opposed to the Idi Amin support, does indeed 'have legs." It has been ongoing as long as Mr. Chavez has wanted it. The US media has a short attention span and Venezuela is not at the top of it's interests (lots of noise - no effect). It is not Iran nor North Korea. Just because it is not in the US papers daily does not mean that it is not notable. It is not a one-time story. A bit ironic, if it is in the US papers then we are accused of being anti-Chavez and it can't be reported; if it isn't in the US papers, then it isn't notable; nevermind that both mindsets give Wikipedia a US-centric POV. Student7 (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If it is notable then you should have no problem in finding discussion of the relationship in high quality reliable sources, viz., books and academic journals. BTW here is what BBC said: "Chavez addressed Carlos as a distinguished compatriot and defended the letter by saying it showed human solidarity not political support."[11] The Four Deuces (talk) 13:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I seem to have misplaced an article documenting Prince Charles' letters stating "human solidarity" with Charles Manson, or stating Barack Obamas solidarity with Idi Amin. Perhaps you can help? Student7 (talk) 13:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you can avoid asking obviously tendentious questions involving completely invalid comparisons? Rd232 ^talk 13:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me be clear. Responsible elected leaders in real democracies do not say anything quotable for concern they might not be representing the thoughts of everyone. An appointed Secretary was fired in the US for saying that a Board he controlled was comprised, for diversity, "of a Jew, a cripple and a black." This was accurate but was considered too blunt and offensive.

Megalomanics do not worry about this sort of trivialities and say anything they like whenever they feel like it. They are not concerned with niceties only "the truth" (as they see it, of course). Their supporters realize this discontinuity and try to cover for them, but it is vital information that researchers are exposed to bluntness, lack of sensitivity, support for the unsupportable.

People who control the ballot box do not need to worry about getting reelected and talk like Saddam Hussein, Muamur Quadafi, Idi Amin, etc. Quotes from true democracies do not sound like these folks. But let the quotes fall where they may and let the researcher decide. Covering it up makes Wikipedia less credible. Student7 (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually Chavez was democratically elected to his office. And some leaders in democratic societies do say stupid things. Just consider the last US president. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I refute it thus: Silvio Berlusconi. Rd232 ^talk 14:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with those picked-up phrases is that they easily lead to guilt by association. I can praise Hitler's oratorical skills and that does not make me a Nazi but if someone reported in a newspaper that I "praised Hitler" a lot of people would think that I sympathize with the Nazis. Chávez praised Amin nationalism, so we have two alternatives here: either we report precisely what Chávez said or we do not report anything at all but a vague phrase like "Chávez praised Amin" is unacceptable. But of course, going into the details of an isolated event is not a good idea for an encyclopedic article; if we had a good academic paper on "Chávez praising monsters" or "Chávez praising nationalism" that would be a different story.
Same thing applies to Carlos, just reporting a "relation" does not take into account for instance the most basic of facts: Carlos is a Venezuelan citizen and Chávez is the President and any Venezuelan citizen has the right to ask for government assistance when in legal problems in a foreign country. JRSP (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It would seem to me that Chavez praising Carlos the Jackal in a way that makes it very clear that Chavez approves of what the man did is in fact noteworthy for a section concerning Chavez and terrorism. The Four Deuces is simply employing sophistry to argue in favor of not adding a noteworthy remark. Chavez has a long-standing and noteworthy record of praising war criminals like Carlos the Jackal and organizations like the FARC; if you are worried about Chavez looking bad, perhaps he shouldn't have said it? After all, according to The Four Deuces the previous President of the USA said plenty of stupid things, I'm sure having a healthy amount of them available for people to read would be appropriate, so why not Chavez's remarks about Carlos the Jackal? Because they make Chavez look bad. That's it. No other reason. You're defending Chavez without reason or cause and you're using sophistry to do it. You should be ashamed of yourself for lecturing people about good faith, you aren't acting with it at all. —Preceding 24.131.26.194 comment added by 24.131.26.194 (talk) 07:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

IP, you cannot simply pick examples to prove a contention that "Chavez has a long-standing and noteworthy record of praising war criminals (sic) like Carlos the Jackal and organizations like the FARC" which is original research. Instead you should look for reliable sources to see whether or not your conclusion is widely accepted. You cannot develop a good article by simply adding news stories. You must read books and articles in academic journals. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

At least we seem to agree that Chavez' remarks were "stupid". What we don't seem to agree on is that they should be presented instead of withheld from the encylopedia audience to allow them to make their own determination. Protecting Chavez from this analysis is what the discussion is about. Whether his remarks require WP:CENSORing or not. Student7 (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. We should not run through the hundreds of comments that Chavez has made and select those that support our view of him. Instead, we must go to reliable sources that provide critical, balanced analysis. Since you mention WP:Censorship, it states, "Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view)... will also be removed". The Four Deuces (talk)

You are the one missing the point. Like I said, I will be contacting the appropriate parties at Wikipedia regarding you and the Hugo Chavez page. I will also soon be reconstructing the criticism section and putting it back up, on this page, where it will remain. If you take it down, I will put it back up. Your little tyranny here is over. 24.131.26.194 (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of those comments are uncivil, and appear to include a threat not to collaborate with others, which won't get you very far. Please review the Wikipedia policies WP:Consensus, WP:NPOV, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. If by "contacting the appropriate parties" you meant using appropriate dispute resolution, at least you got that right. Rd232 ^talk 06:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Leaving personal attacks aside, I think there is consensus that the topic "Hugo Chavez opinion on terrorism" should be added, including his comments on the FARC and the Jackal. These comply with all the Wikipedia guidelines as shown above. Maybe The Four Deuces would want to write the content? That way we can end this discussion and move on to other topics.--Specialcontributor75 (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no such consensus; you were referred to dispute resolution. You could also work on a userspace draft to clarify what you want to include and how well it is sourced, which would assist in a WP:RFC for instance. On such a topic in a biography of a living person, some generally agreeable text should certainly be drafted before adding to the article. Rd232 ^talk 10:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Chávez's oratorical style

Mr Chávez appreciates direct televised interaction and has been known to place bugs and interact visibly through broadcast tv with certain individuals. Broadcast interception and surrepticious insertion of other programs in lieu of the standard is/was not unusual.(Fractalhints (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

You need reliable sources in order to edit the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Does being there count as reliable or must you have a phd to be an expert witness?(Fractalhints (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC))

If by "being there" you mean being a personal witness, that would be original research, not allowed by policy; this applies to experts and non experts. As The Four Deuces said, what you need is secondary reliable sources. JRSP (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - a compendium of established knowledge, based on bringing together information published in reliable, secondary sources. For your own experiences or opinions, try Wikinews or start a blog. Rd232 ^talk 18:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

JRSP, PSTS,

are you two presuming to say that wikipedia accepts premasticated opinion from newsmedia? Those opinions where the secondary sources are unknown and kept secret due journalistic privelege? A personal witness never classifies as original research, even when there are secondary witnesses. Besides, all the scientific facts due einstein etc, being original research, would exclude their entry. Do attempt to change some regulations, original research should be verifiable research, which is what the four deuces was implying. Lot´s of subjects in wikipedia are not verifiable, they are conglomerate standardized opinions, from experts, whom sweat blood the moment a verifiable theory arrives that contradicts their pet project. Accepted premasticated factoids due publicly printed opinion. wikipedia is no exception and not a leprachaun vault for -quote- established -unquote- knowledge. Differenciate what is scientific fact from non-scientific -quote- fact -unquote- and I would have accepted your expert opinion. However, PSTS, heckler tactics are not becomming, any activism in your curriculum, perhaps a surname such as mandrake in your circle of acquaintances?

PS, changes in wikipedia are now and then used to bother certain individuals under investigation by a long list of secret service individuals. You wouldn´t happen to have a handy list with the level of security clearance of all the meriat individuals making changes, do you?. Thought so, too bad really.

PSS, you have my publicly private wiki address, let´s try to keep this of the public boards, shall we. There you are welcome to flame away, that´s what differenciates the public from the private.(Fractalhints (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC))

WP:No original research is one of wikipedia's core policies and it's accepted by the WP community an a standard to follow. If you want to discuss about the policy, you must do it at the policy talk page. JRSP (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does in fact accept accept "premasticated opinion from newsmedia". If you do not like that policy either lobby to change the policy or edit another wiki that does something different. The Four Deuces (talk)

I noted that JRSP is an EX-Venezuelan and that both of you might not be as nuetral as should be. Only in regards to this particular subject mind you. I would be delighted if JSRP would provide an email and offcourse, both of you are invited to visit Venezuela to find out for yourself. However, that would be original research and original research is not allowed in wikipedia (Laissez Fair speach not allowable, a fine policy indeed). It is known by both national and international residents that information from sources - counter to the media that is counter -to ´El Presidente´ of ´El Regime´ should be met with distrust. Perhaps one or both of you are located in Miami, Florida, well known for harashment tactics of any viewpoint or individual that might have a positive aspect or tint in regards to that particular Venezuelan citizen. No discussion, just the facts.

PS: I do not have a habit of lobbying in either the house or the senate so that would be out of the question. However, I thank you for your recommendation and do believe that wikipedia will give lobbying it´s due consideration for next years donations. Is ´Four Deuces´ a sublimal poker innuendo regarding 4 zeros in regard to this topic? Just asking.(Fractalhints (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC))

Actually deuces is a term for twos, not zeros. The Joker is the zero. Four twos is a pretty good hand. Mind you four jokers is better because then you have five of a kind that beats a royal flush. The problem with this article is that no one ever provides high quality reliable sources just the Chavez story of the week. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"the ... story of the week" - yes, that's the problem with most articles about subjects and people of current political significance: WP:Recentism. Rd232 ^talk 10:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Signature

What local consensus? Connormah (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't find a talk page discussion in the archives, but I recall that some time in 2009 there was an edit war about including the signature, driven by one editor who wanted it, with a few others considering it had no encyclopedic value. The end result was that it was not included. Rd232 ^talk 10:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not being a biography specialist, I find it hard to understand why it is so important. There are holes in most Venezuelan articles. I would rather fill those omissions than concern ourselves with signatures just now. But maybe that is naive. Student7 (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If there's no reason to include it, we should exclude it. Otherwise we swamp the stuff which we do understand why it's important, and do the reader no service at all. Rd232 ^talk 22:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a real reason to exclude it? If not, I don't see why it shouldn't be included. Stinging Swarm ^talk 05:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I just argued that the default should be to exclude content unless there's a reason for inclusion, because including unnecessary content dilutes the good stuff. You've stated the opposite view without making any argument for it. Rd232 ^talk 10:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Just saying, it's usually standard to include the signature. Most articles do include it if it's available. I mean, I don't think it dilutes the good stuff in any way. Swarm^Talk 21:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't recall seeing it anywhere else. I'm not about to go around campaigning for it to be removed elsewhere, but I don't want it added. And since the reader has a limited amount of attention, throwing an irrelevant visual at him/her is in general a bad thing. Signature is not encyclopedic content, so it's a useless distraction. Rd232 ^talk 09:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, are we talking about the same concept of "signature", here? There's a small place for the signature in the infobox. Off the top of my head: George Washington, Adolph Hitler, Henry VIII of England, Louis XIV of France, Mahatma Gandhi, Winston Churchill, Elizabeth I, Elizabeth II, Benito Mussolini, Abraham Lincoln. What makes you think signature isn't encyclopedic content? It's not a distraction at all. Readers aren't going to "get distracted" by something like that. Swarm^Talk 07:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think it is encyclopedic? The burden of proof is on the inclusion of content, not exclusion (or do you want to have explain why images of pets are not encyclopedic? or a million more like that which could all theoretically go in the infobox?). There is an RFC on removing the parameter from the infobox: Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#Proposal_to_delete_signature_parameter. And in fact a handwritten scrawl (the signature) sticks out like a sore thumb in the page of normal type, especially when the reader is scanning (as web users do; see web usability studies as at eg www.useit.com). And a signature conveys no useful information, any more than a picture of the officeholder's pet would. In the few instances a signature is actually significant, it should be in the body, not the infobox. Rd232 ^talk 09:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If adding a signature violates a certain policy, that's one thing. The RfC is "no consensus" at best, with a large majority of users opposing the removal of the parameter, so that shows us that there is no consensus that signatures aren't encyclopedic. The argument that it would distract from the article just doesn't make sense. Maybe it would. Maybe it wouldn't.

Regardless, including a signature does not violate any policy or go against any consensus that I know of, hence there's no reason not to include it. The claim that content would take away from the good stuff is not an argument to exclude the addition of that content. In other words, the content can be added. Note that there are many articles that have made it to Featured Article status that have included signatures.--Swarm^Talk 10:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The RFC is about removing the infobox parameter; and per WP:NOTAVOTE the nearly complete failure to address the arguments made shouldn't matter to the outcome. Regardless: make an actual argument why this particular signature should be included. (Would you include it in the body text, and if so, why?) Or start drafting arguments on why we should not include images of pets, shoe sizes, and other miscellaneous trivia in the infobox. Rd232 ^talk 13:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

PS Featured Articles are like sausages - you do not want to see one getting made. Rd232 ^talk 13:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, look. Personally, I would rather see a signature in the article if possible. While I don't think it harms the article, it isn't necessary. I don't understand such apparent vehement opposition to its inclusion. I think it's such a small detail in the infobox, it doesn't make a difference one way or another. But this isn't even over a proposal to add the signature, this is over "What local consensus?". I can see this discussion turning into an incredibly long debate over a minor issue if we both keep pushing it, and I don't have passionate opinion regarding this as you do, so I'm just going to let it go, seeing as there's no discussion to actually add the sig. Swarm^Talk 19:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone object to mentioning his mental illness?

Per WP:DUCK this guy is pretty obviously insane. I'm sure it'd be quite easy to find sources to confirm this and recent events shouldn't even make that necessary. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

He isn't nuts, you are`. --TIAYN (talk) 09:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The guy said the US used an earthquake weapon on Haiti and is friends with Sean Penn - that's pretty conclusive evidence. TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

To qualify somebody as "insane" in an Wikipedia article, you must show reliable sources explicitly supporting that, editors' inferences are original research and therefore, not allowed. These policies are particularly strict when dealing with living persons. JRSP (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean he is insane, just stupid, you need reliable sources to qualify him as "nuts". --TIAYN (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here is a source, in it Chavez's psychiatrist says he is capable of self-immolation, a couple opposition parties (too small to do it by themselves) want to get him checked out mentally, they say many members of Hugo's own party think he is mental and talks about a few other delusions. Remember, this guy is a dictator who controls the media and who a lot of people are afraid of. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

In the newsweek article, the only persons claiming that Chávez is mentally ill are opposition politicians. What I read in the article is that in 2001 a group from a political party devised a procedure for applying Article 233 of the Venezuelan Constitution for forcing him out of office before his term end. Source does not support your claim. JRSP (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with JRSP. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

His own psychiatrist said Chavez is capable of setting himself on fire. Chavez says crazy crap all the time like how Bush/Obama are Satan and how we used an Earthquake Weapon on Haiti - this guy is obviously not right in the head. The opposition party really thinks he is crazy and say even his own party thinks so - but are too afraid to confront him. This parallels many other insane dicators like Hitler. I have no idea why you guys are defending him so strongly. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

According to this several psychiatrists have diagnosed him as having NPD - this is not surprising and would explain his inventiveness with the truth. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Verifiability policy requires that we work with reliable sources. Your last source is not considered reliable; for further information, check this mediation case. JRSP (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

My website is not a reliable source. 'Neocon' newspapers are not a reliable source. Media outlets that merely report what the insanely deranged president of Venezuela says are not reliable either. But Venezuelanalysis, financed by the Chavez regime, registered by a Venezuelan official, and run by somebody who is married to a Venezuelan official is, in JRSP and his chums' opinion, a reliable source. Great going guys, we must all thank you for showing the true meaning of chavista objectivity.--Alekboyd (talk) 09:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It said it can be used as long as Venezuala Analysis is also being used (and it is - many times), in order to balance the biased nature of that website. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of what you are saying is pure nonesence... an example being that Chávez is not a dictator. --TIAYN (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

lol yeah right, I guess he is just "president for life" with the occasional mock election who will imprison anyone who publically criticizes him. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

He has never called himself, or given himself or been given the title President for Life. This is just as stupid as calling Palin "nuts" because she saw Russia from her house. I'm seriously not going to listen to this Republican/American bias of yours. --TIAYN (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

TheGoodLocust, this is getting very tedious. This is an abuse of the talk page, especially considering this is a BLP. Please stop. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please asume good faith, we could say the same to you and your position on Hugo Chavez and terrorism.--Specialcontributor75 (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a chat room. Your first source does not support your claim, your second source is not reliable and WP:BLP applies. JRSP (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Palin never said she saw Russia from her house - you are repeating what a comic said who was imitating her. Chavez however did abolish term limits and that action has been referred to in several sources as a way to make him "president for life."TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The guy [Chavez] said the US used an earthquake weapon on Haiti. Not according to this Venezuelan blogger he didn't. [12] Wikispan (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

lol, they have it on tape! This guy says really crazy stuff all the time like breaking out into song when giving speeches, telling people how long to shower and other weird stuff. We go with real news sources, not Venezuelan bloggers - the country is well known for being suppressed (as my sources have shown) and any media coming out of that country is inherently untrustworthy due to Chavez's influence. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

[T]they have it on tape! Are you certain of this? The footage I saw had no connection to this story whatsoever. Wikispan (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

by the by, he doesn't, generally, break into any old song like he's having a karaoke session, he sings (or quotes) Alí Primera songs, which have an enormous cultural and political significance for the part of the population who repeatedly voted for him. Singing/quoting from them is a political statement. Rd232 ^talk 11:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Early Life

Why would two schoolteachers be living in a mud hut? Clivemacd (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

He is a dictator

not mentioning this obvious fact is one of the reasons why wikipedia has such a bad rap. Here are just a few, of a huge number, of sources that refer to him as such:

[13] [14][15][16][17][18][19]

He controls the press, arrests political opponents, changes the laws to keep him in power in many ways, has abolished term limits so he can be "president for life," has disbanded congress on more than one occasion, and many others things. I have no idea why you guys don't think he is a dictator, but sources and actions confirm it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The sources even sais the people voted to abolish the term limits and for changing the laws. Some of those sources are unreliable, and i cannot see anything about arresting political opponents. GU --TIAYN (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Some are unreliable? Perhaps, but certainly not all of them. I also have a source that says people voted to get rid of term limits because they were afraid of what he'd do to them if they voted "no." A construction worker said he voted yes just because he was afriad he'd lose his job. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

From the telegraph, "Cesar Perez, the governor of Tachira state, told The Sunday Telegraph that the military had already disarmed his police of most weapons bar handguns, and taken control of airports and highways.

"The political opposition is constantly persecuted here," he said. "We are turning into an authoritarian state where democratic rights are lost. Chavez has threatened me publicly with jail several times. I have one foot on the governor's office and the other in prison." "

From the Miami Herald, "In this deeply polarized country, the climate of fear could be seen in the answer of Nestor Moreno, a 58-year-old construction worker, when asked how he voted.

I voted yes because I didn't want to face reprisals for voting no, said Moreno. People lose jobs because they don't agree with the Chavez regimen.

Chavez is very authoritarian, Moreno added. He needs to be more democratic. Things have to be done his way or the highway."TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Both articles present different opinions for and against Chávez. You cannot just pick the opinions you like and present those opinions as facts. (not-signed by JSRP or something)

lol, there is no wikipedia policy that says we have to quote everything in an article or nothing from it! This article has serious problems and has in the RfC been shown to use biased, government-influenced sources, throughout the article - don't cry out about poor standards and "fairness" when this article appears to have been written by Chavez's own internet goons. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a policy called WP:NPOV with states that we must distinguish opinions from facts and, when presenting opinions, fairly represent all parties. JRSP (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

And what makes you think I'm not? I haven't proposed any additions. If anything we should say that he has been described at a dictator by the sources and his mental competence has been questioned by his political opponents and the various psychologists in the sources - saying nothing is certainly not NPOV. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And you don't think it is relevant that most of the world thinks he is a dictator? TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And the article would be improved by mentioning the questions about his mental health and his status as a dictator. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? The Four Deuces (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

For the same reason that the Hitler article mentions that he was a dictator and that he was mentally erratic (possibly due to syphillus) - it is the truth, it is verifiable and it improves the article. This isn't meant to be a whitewashed article - he has the Venezualan media to do that for him. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

These articles are supposed to be written in an intelligent way with a neutral point of view sourced to reliable sources. Extremist and fringe views of topics, especially those that are from the perspective of any one country, should not be included. Instead of using Google to find sources that confirm what you believe, you should find serious source material for the article. Why did Chavez become president? Why was he able to survive the coup attempt? Why is he unpopular in the US? Is he a reformer or just the lastest demagogue? Will his reforms help his country or are they misguided? These are the types of questions readers want answered. They are not really interested that 10 years ago a political opponent called him mentally ill or that an American DJ calls him a dictator. Ten years from now he might be America's greatest ally in South America and Fox News viewers will be fighting to remove any criticism from this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well from looking at the past disputes relating to the article, the fringe viewpoint seems to be winning and that is the viewpoint that this is some great man, when the reality of the situation is that he is developing a cult of personality like many dictators have done in the present (Kim Jong Il) and the past (Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc). TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The significance and nature of Chavez' personal leadership ("cult of personality" as you put it) is something that conceivably good relevant sources exist on - preferably decent academic ones, so that they're appropriately substantive, and not some ignorant media commentator's personal opinion. "Dictator" is irretrievably opinion in the present circumstances of Venezuela. (Incidentally, do you have the faintest idea about communal councils in the Venezuelan context? You kinda should - and if you have to ask why, that speaks volumes.) Rd232 ^talk 23:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And scene, per Godwin's law. Rd232 ^talk 11:14, 25 Januar 2010 (UTC)

Oh please, we are talking about a dictator and comparing one dicator with alleged mental problems to another dictator with the same allegations is comparing apples to apples. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and for posterity (and the links it contains), here is a link to last diff of the AN thread about this subject.TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

These articles require at least the standards that your community college requires for essays. When you submit your opinions, ask yourself whether it would qualify for essays that you submitted in community college. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It may not matter

We want to think what we write here is important and what get censored/allowed is important. It is. But only to us. Just as in America, where a left-wing press is often ignored. Try this on for size http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/24/AR2010012402379.html Note the sinking levels of Chavez support. I guess Venezuelans aren't reading this article. Or, if they are, they don't believe it. People have a way of educating themselves. Censorship may exist here but not everywhere. Venezuelans will get the truth from somewhere, if not from us. Student7 (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Op-eds are not reliable sources for biographies of living persons. And the neo-conservative writer Jackson Diehl was wrong about Iraq.[20] The Four Deuces (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to cite an op-ed - and a really bad op-ed at that - allow me to link a detailed response showing just how bad it is. (And that response doesn't even find space to note that the power cuts are largely due to drought affecting the country's hydroelectricity, not due to recession as implied.) Rd232 ^talk 18:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wasington Post is a good op-ed, but has no place on Wiki. See WP:SOAP: Wiki article talk pages are for discussing article improvement, based on reliable sources. I suggest that Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela is the place for other discussions. This is another issue affecting Venezuelan articles (editors who don't use reliable sources, and expend time on polemics ... there are plenty of reliable sources saying the same thing as that op-ed: use them.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

An editor has tagged this article for lack of neutrality but has provided no reason for placing the template. Please provide clear reasons for the tag. In the meantime, I will remove it. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

One just needs to read the talk page to see the reasons of the lack of neutrality. You were involved with removing the criticism section and now removed the tag?--Specialcontributor75 (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The criticism page was merged into other articles. NPOV tags need to be clearly explained such that an attempt may be made to address the problem. Rd232 ^talk 13:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The criticism page was merged out of existence: content disappeared from the Wiki. That this article is blatantly POV needs little justification, but one example would be to compare it to the BBC profile of Chavez, and attempt to introduce some balance to this article. Alternately, dozens of examples of the POV in this article could be provided, but I doubt that is helpful or necessary. Working towards a more balanced account like the BBC profile would be a good start. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The page disappeared, the substantive content did not: that's what "merged" means. If you want to see the deleted page to check if stuff was missed, any admin should userfy it for you temporarily on request. As for the BBC profile (which is not an encyclopedia article and not to be taken as a model): as far as I can see none of the points in it are omitted from the much longer Wikipedia article; it's not clear what you mean by "balance". And by the by it refers to Chavez "making a huge territorial claim on Guyana"; AFAIK that Venezuelan territorial claim goes back to at least the 60s (Betancourt?) and the claim isn't just on Guyanan territory. Rd232 ^talk 17:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, for the neutrality tag to remain it needs to be justified properly: either by there being clearly disputed content (eg two different versions), or by clearly explaining specific issues in sufficient detail that the problem may be addressed. Without that, the tag should be removed. Rd232 ^talk 18:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to see the deleted page; I was tricked into moving most of it out of this article, where it was originally, to that article, so it could disappear. I know its content very well. You can go back and find the version of this article before I collaborated in good faith by first moving out criticism, at which time, further changes to this article were shut down. I was a novice editor then; I fell for it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Then you should also know that the content, insofar as it had any actual encyclopedic merit rather than being merely opinion, was moved to subject articles like Economy of Venezuela. Rd232 ^talk 18:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Only some parts that hadn't already disappeared when I stopped following these articles. But that brings up another point: another reason this article is POV is that it relies on daughter articles which are all, also, POV (except the Early life and Military career daughter articles, which I think are OK, but I haven't dug into sources to check yet). And where did the crime, human rights, and other criticism go? Gone, as far as I've been able to tell so far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The crime bits were, AFAIR, misleading junk. But creation of Crime in Venezuela and Judiciary of Venezuela has been recommended repeatedly recently, always falling on curiously deaf ears given the interest in those topics. It's almost like a neutral attempt to discuss those issues in a standalone article doesn't fit some contributors' motivation of Chavez-bashing! (Perish the thought.) Rd232 ^talk 18:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." In order to challenge the neutrality of this article, reasons must be provided explaining specifically why this standard has not been met. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Um, I don't write "misleading junk", Rd232 :) And I don't think that has fallen on deaf ears, rather all Venezuela/Chavez articles are straining under WP:BITE and WP:OWN, there's too much to do, and editors give up. Fact is, as a novice editor, I fell for it, created a POV fork, and the end result is that mainstream, well-sourced material that is critical of Chavez is now gone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Four Deuces, you've aready got one concrete example (the BBC profile); we can fill up the page with dozens more, but again, I doubt that would be a productive use of our time, since there are plenty of editors here who will simply remove the POV tag no matter how much evidence is given. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(a) the content is largely not gone (merged), and any not merged that you want to retrieve you can. (b) the BBC profile is only an example if you explain exactly how it relates to your claim that an NPOV tag is required. Otherwise, it's just a link. Rd232 ^talk 18:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) SandyGeorgia, could you tell us what is in the BBC profile that is missing from this article causing it to be POV? Unless you provide reasons for your opinion about this article, how do you expect anyone to guess what you want done? The Four Deuces (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Four Dueces, I'm sure you can read; I've typed it above several times already. There is not a single critical statement in the Wiki lead; contrast that to the BBC profile. But, we have the usual pattern here, of the familiar cast of characters owning the article and removing a POV tag, which is why few will take the time to substantiate it, knowing it will be removed no matter how much discussion or evidence is provided.

• 14:22, February 6, 2010 Rd232 (undo - produce just 1 (one) change towards what you think is NPOV which is disputed; or 1 (one) concrete example of POV, in sufficient detail that it may be addressed. That's all the tag requires!)
• 12:57, February 6, 2010 Student7 (Reverted 1 edit by Rd232; About half a dozen of us think it is pov, It is definitely on the talk page. You may not agree, but it is documented. Not allowing anything npovl is outrageous. (TW))
• 18:45, February 5, 2010 Rd232 (undo - clear reasons NOT provided, please do not re-add until provided (leaving tag in without clear reasons gives the wrong incentive to clarify sufficiently to enable fixing))
• 18:40, February 5, 2010 SandyGeorgia (reasons for tag provided on talk, you might not like them, but they're there, stop removing POV tag, pls)
• 18:33, February 5, 2010 The Four Deuces (Undid revision 342131491 by SandyGeorgia (talk) No reasons provided for tag - see talk page)
• 17:45, February 5, 2010 SandyGeorgia (Restore POV tag, as it most clearly is, see talk)
• 00:15, February 4, 2010 The Four Deuces (talk | contribs) (51,395 bytes) (Undid revision 341782676 by Drsmoo (talk) Please discuss on talk page)
• 23:43, February 3, 2010 Drsmoo (There are significant and persistent challenges to the even handedness of this article on the talkpage. NPOV dispute added)

The ownership and tendentious editing here make disucssion an unproductive use of one's time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Amended to add latest reverts of POV tag, although clearly numerous editors find this article POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The article lead says this:

Chávez's policies have evoked controversy in Venezuela and abroad, receiving everything from vehement criticism to enthusiastic support. During the presidency of George W. Bush the government of the United States stated at various points that Chávez was a threat to democracy in Latin America.

The beginning of the BBC article says this:

Hugo Chavez came to power in 1999, and has inspired both adulation and loathing at home and abroad ever since. Venezuelans are split on their president: a majority say he speaks for the poor, while others say he has become increasingly autocratic.

The WP article appears to be harsher on Chavez than the BBC profile.

The Four Deuces (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting analysis, confined to one sentence of the BBC profile. At any rate, this article is owned, I have many other duties on Wiki, and little time for tendentious debates with editors who have reverted POV tags on this article for years. Perhaps other editors will take the time that is required to neutralize this article; I'm not particularly concerned, since Chavez is doing enough harm to himself anyway, and I doubt that anyone who knows anything about anything will take this article seriously anyway, since it's so clearly biased. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Just as at WP:RSN#Venezuelanalysis, you think you should get your way by voicing your opinion loudly enough and frequently enough, and accusing any who disagree of all manner of bad faith. Actually producing evidence to support your arguments is too much like hard work, is it? Rd232 ^talk 23:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Watch your AGF there, Rd; who's done most of the article work on Venezuelan articles in the last week? I'm only one person :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've got to watch AGF? The bloody cheek! You barely miss an opportunity to accuse me of bad faith, implicitly or explicitly. (Also my statement didn't actually accuse you of bad faith.) In the amount of time/effort you've put into this thread and said nothing concrete you should easily have been able to say something substantive about what the BBC source is supposed to show. Rd232 ^talk 00:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you research articles and article issues that quickly: I don't. When I work on an article, I build it as completely and correctly as possible, including researching all sources and cleaning up MoS and citations. And I don't see the point in trying to tag this article POV for the gazillionth time, knowing how fast it will be removed by the article owners. Nor do I see the utility in quoting the BBC profile back to you; you can read as well as I can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The utility in quoting parts of it would lie in identifying the bits you think significant! You're playing games here - this is like trying to extract information from a recalcitrant teenager. If you don't have time to explain now - fine, though giving some indication would seem at least a courtesy for the amount of time wasted on this issue so far. Come back when you feel you have time and inclination to properly explain your concerns in sufficient detail such that they may actually be understood and potentially addressed. Rd232 ^talk 01:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for censorship

It has occurred to me that the reasoning for censorship is that Chavez plays the strutting popinjay for his Latin low class followers. A drunk might say that he is friends with Carlos, and admires Idi Amin. but hardly a sober person. His followers evidently find that amusing. This probably does not play as well to upper class Latins and plays very poorly to an Anglophone audience who got strutting popinjays out of their system so long ago that they can't remember when it was. Even Huey Long did not talk like that and certainly not Robert LaFollette. Joseph McCarthy may have come close occasionally, but he was an genuine alcoholic.

Therefore it gets censored, not because it isn't true or reportable, but because it shows him poorly to a literate (and Anglophone) audience. Student7 (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

How necessary is this comment? Xavexgoem (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again: an NPOV tag is not a "bah, I don't like it" statement. It is to flag specific problems, which must be clear enough that someone can actually attempt to address them. Instead of edit warring about a tag without explaining, explain. Or better yet, try fixing, and see what happens. A dispute being sufficiently clear is a prerequisite for solving it, eg via WP:RFC or other WP:DR. Rd232 ^talk 14:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Student7, please read WP:SOAP and WP:TALK; comments and discussion such as your post (and your post of an op-ed above, when scores of reliable sources say the same thing) do nothing to advance this article, and are offensive (not all of Chavez's "followers" are "Latin low class" and that's an offensive characterization even if it were true). Commentary on article talk pages should focus on improving article content using reliable sources, not polemics and hyperbole. There is plenty of work to be done on these articles, and I'm not interested in doing all the work myself. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela; there's lots of work there that needs to be done. Or you could get busy answering Rd232's query about why this article is POV, so I don't have to do everything. Or you could get busy cleaning up Economy of Venezuela, which needs a week's work just to make it readable, much less accurate and neutral. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

BBC profile of Chavez as one of many examples of this article's POV

I have presented the BBC profile of Chavez as but one of many examples of how biased this article is; it is merely a sample-- there are scores of reliable sources that are similar, and analyzing all of them would merely fill up this talk page with redundancy. Although the discrepancies between due weight of reliable sources and this article are abundant and easily apparent, the POV tag has (yet again) been edit warred away.

The current lead of this article contains not one single critical commentary of Chavez, although every mainstream reliable source one can read about Chavez contains pro, con and neutral commentary. It is unabashed and biased hagiography. All this lead says is:

Chávez's policies have evoked controversy in Venezuela and abroad, receiving everything from vehement criticism to enthusiastic support. During the presidency of George W. Bush the government of the United States stated at various points that Chávez was a threat to democracy in Latin America.

In other words, a whitewash under the vague term "controversy", as if the "vehement criticism" is in the same proportion as the "enthusiastic support" (ignoring the preponderance of reliable sources) and an implication that only the Bush administration has found fault with Chavez's administration (ignoring other fallouts with world leaders, e.g. "In November 2007 Mr Chavez fell out with Spain after a run-in with King Juan Carlos during the final session of Ibero-American summit in Santiago."). Focusing for now on the lead, which should (bold emphasis mine):

serve both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, ...

The current lead makes no attempt to give due weight to Chavez according to reliable sources.

Next, examining the BBC profile, we find balanced statements throughout that examine both sides, examples:

• ... inspired both adulation and loathing at home and abroad
• ... a majority say he speaks for the poor, while others say he has become increasingly autocratic (majority is no longer true, this is outdated, Chavez's popularity is at all time lows, both in Venezuela and abroad, but at least the BBC profile presents both)
• At the time, Mr Chavez said the proposed changes would return power to the people, but critics accused him of a power grab.
• Mr Chavez's government has implemented a number of "missions" or social programmes, including education and health services for all. But chronic poverty and unemployment are still widespread, despite the country's oil wealth. (Wiki has no mention whatsoever of his failed economic policies, or rampant crime and corruption-- those issues were well documented in the Criticism article, which disappeared.)

Next, we find very notable items completely missing from our lead:

• The former army paratrooper first came to prominence as a leader of a failed coup in 1992. (In articles that spend so much time on the "coup" against Chavez, one would expect to find mention that he himself led a coup attempt, and his followers led a second attempt while he was imprisoned).
• His time in office has proved equally dramatic. (ALL reliable sources discuss the rampant crime, corruption, and assault on democratic institutions and human rights; our lead doesn't.)
• ... he is eyeing staying in office beyond the end of his current term in 2012. The referendum win means he can run for office an unlimited number of times. Mr Chavez has said he needs another 10 years for what he calls Venezuela's socialist revolution to take root. (Wiki makes no mention of his frequent "President for life" aspirations, something that has been neglected according to due weight of reliable sources.)
• Church attacked, no mention in our article.

Further problems:

This statement is completely outdated (see the op-ed posted above by Student7, which contains commentary backed by numerous reliable sources:

Many other governments sympathize with his ideology or welcome his bilateral trade and reciprocal aid agreements.

and this commentary is misleading:

In 2005 and 2006 he was named one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people.

Time magazine's reasons for maing him influential weren't exactly ... ummmm ... positive; they were related to his "deep pocket" in spreading socialism, which has now been shown to have failed, and the amount of controversy he evokes-- that is missing from our lead.

And completely missing from our lead is any mention of the deterioration in human rights, control of the judiciary, consolidation of power, and numerous other issues well documented and sourced in daughter and other articles, and which should be included and expanded in this article, along with an analysis of the failed economic policies and rampant corruption and crime. Please don't pretend not to know where to find those sources; those who have admin tools can access the old Criticism article, whose content vanished, and I've added sources to many other articles which need not be repeated here.

That's one article only: same could be done with scores of others. That's the LEAD only. This article is POV, and does not give due weight to reliable sources. Please stop edit warring away the POV tag on a clearly POV article. And will the article owners please at least fix the lead? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

My reading of the introduction to this article and the BBC article is that both provide an equally balanced view. If anything, the BBC article's beginning is more favorable to Chavez. However, if you think there could be more balance in the lead, you should write a suggested lead and place it here so we can understand what you are talking about. In the meantime you are placing a POV tag on the article without explaining what specifically can be done to make it NPOV. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course that is your reading; now, let's deal with the preponderance of reliable sources and the plain fact that I have documented this article's POV, and numerous other editors also see it. And don't misrepresent: I have explained-- that you reject and edit war away a tag is a separate issue. And I'm not investing time in working on an article that is owned, and where my work will merely "disappear" as the Criticism article did. I suggest that some actual Wiki collaboration to neutralize this article would be more helpful and stop reverting a clearly justified POV tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Balance? I'm sure both article and lead can be improved, but most of the concrete points made are wrong. It surely can't be seriously argued that a single minor diplomatic incident (Spain) should have equal space in the lead with US-Venezuela relations. And whilst the lead doesn't mention the 92 coup, the article has 3 paragraphs on it - double the text of Foreign Policy and Economic Policy! There is no Domestic Policy section, which is where I suppose crime/justice would fall, but without Crime in Venezuela / Judiciary of Venezuela there's no daughter articles to link to, and surely no-one's suggesting that these subjects merit only a paragraph or two in the biography of the current President? In general, how about complaining less (and seeing bad faith everywhere) and making constructive suggestions/proposals more. Stop trying to prosecute fellow editors, and take WP:AGF as more than a mere acronym to quote when it suits. Rd232 ^talk 17:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I am completely certain that you do not have a reading comprehension problem, Rd232; please stop obfuscating. Our article implies that his only differences are with Bush; that is not the case (hello, Columbia and Spain and others). I am not suggesting we add the King incident to the lead; I am pointing out that our article is biased and incomplete, and the King (and Uribe) are but a few examples among many. Um, there was a daughter article on crime-- it's gone. You have admin tools; you can resurrect that content before most of it was edited away. I am not going to invest time in building correctly an article that is owned, so that content can again disappear to where only admins can see it. Show us your neutrality; do some content work yourself-- I've already done plenty in the last two weeks. Meanwhile, the absence of content that was here once and disappeared, or the absence of daughter articles, is not an excuse for this article's bias. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"there was a daughter article on crime"? What was that? I'm presuming you don't mean the Criticism article. Rd232 ^talk 11:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The top section is perfectly neutral at the present time. The lead of Tony Blair and George W. Bush contains not a single line of critical commentary despite voluminous criticism at home and abroad, plus declining approval ratings, but all three articles do make clear that these individuals have received a large amount of criticism and serious controversies are described in the main body and elsewhere. One need only use the scroll function and left mouse button to learn more. Wikispan (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (which is not a valid argument). Are you suggesting Bush and Blair are as controversial as Chavez? And Wiki is not a reliable source; neither Bush nor Blair are featured articles, and Blair has a POV tag :) I suggest instead that you view John McCain, which is a featured article and has been vetted for neutrality. Please confine your discussion to reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The essay Other stuff exists has no bearing on whether this lead is neutral or not (which I happen to believe it is). Do I dare suggest that Bush and Blair are as controversial as Chavez? The answer is an emphatic "Yes." Chavez has not launched an unprovoked invasion resulting in the excess deaths of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, plus the displacement of millions more. Chavez is certainly a controversial figure and has made plenty of errors and stupid decisions. These criticisms are described on this article and in various daughter articles. Wikispan (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually Bush and Blair were more controversial than Chavez and in fact received far more extensive international news coverage. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Offtopic and unrelated. If you want to make an "other stuff exists" argument, see John McCain, a featured article which has been vetted for neutrality and which does include controversy in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Further examples

From my local library (albeit a year outdated, Hugo Chavez, Source: Contemporary Hispanic Biography. Vol. 1. Gale Group, 2002. Updated: 08/12/2009),

The charismatic Hugo Chávez, elected president of Venezuela in 1998, is sometimes described by political pundits as Latin America's most controversial leader after Fidel Castro. Chávez has set this mineral- and resource-rich South American nation on a course of political, economic, and social reform he describes as a "Third Way" between a socialist and a free-market economy. In 2002, Chávez faced growing national discontent as his promised economic betterments were not forthcoming. His popularity was re-affirmed by the people of Venezuela in the recall election of August 2004, wherein he took 58 percent of the vote. However, in 2007, voters rejected a set of constitutional amendments that would have given him sweeping powers.

Note, we make no mention of "economic betterments" that weren't forthcoming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

From LexisNexis:

EuroNews - English, February 18, 2009, Wednesday Hugo: Profile of a political survivor

Hugo Chavez has waited a long time for this result. After failing in a first referendum in 2007, he has finally got what he wants - the possibility of staying in office indefinitely. ... Social programmes have been developed for the underprivileged. But the country's growth and economy are dependent on its oil wealth. And, as oil prices collapse under the global economic crisis, crippling Venezuela's finances, the leftist leader faces a slowing economy. His opponents condemn rampant corruption. Alongside violence and inflation, it is a regular target of anti-Chavez anger that has so far failed to sway loyalists of this political survivor.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Note, we make no mention of his power grab. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Either provide an alternative lead or stop wasting our time. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

There is an ongoing, documented dispute about this article's neutrality, and resistance to neutralizing the article. Please stop removing the clearly justified tag, and engage in neutral editing. Removing a tag when there is a long-standing dispute about this article's neutrality is disruptive and tendentious (and such issues usually end up at WP:ANI). The person placing the tag is not obligated to do the re-write. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The person placing the tag should provide reasons why the tag is justified, which you have not done. Do you think that the lead is biased because it omits to mention that the (non-democratically-elected) King of Spain told Chavez to "shut up" after he called the former Falangist José María Aznar a fascist? The Four Deuces (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've already answered that question (above),[21] and I've clearly provided reasons and examples. Stop removing the tag, which documents that there is a POV dispute. Engage the content instead: I've given you plenty to work on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You must be specific. I have no idea what changes you desire. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to document that there is a POV dispute, which I have done with specificity. Please read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have raised the fourth removal of the POV tag at WP:ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I listed in edit summary additional issues, [22] [23] [24] but those (and dead links and reliable source tags) were reverted by User:The Four Deuces before I even had time to discuss those issues here. And THAT is why working on article content here can't progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You should discuss these issues here first. By the way, i would be agreeable to content dispute resolution for this article, but have no idea what changes you want made. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Those issues were discussed, and have been many times; that you reverted a well documented POV tag without allowing ten minutes to further explore them is a problem. And if you still "have no idea what changes" need to be made, after all the input above, then you further have no reason to remove a POV tag, when the POV dispute is documented. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-adding pov tag

I have re-added the POV tag while I review this discussion. after a brief skim it seems as though the justification for removing the tag is that critical material was moved to other articles, which sounds very much like an unpleasant form of wp:POV fork, which would be unacceptable. please leave the tags on while I go through the arguments more carefully. --Ludwigs2 20:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Ludwigs, the fork was only one of many problems. I created that fork when I was a novice editor, as a good faith effort to reduce the size of this article so we could begin working on it. Lo and behold, after I in good faith removed criticism first-- as a novice editor not understanding the implications-- as soon as I got the bulk of criticism out, other editors prevented further changes to the article, saying it was short enough. Later, that article was deleted, and the content was not merged, and prevailing mainstream viewpoints are no longer anywhere to be found on Wiki. However, that is only *one* of the problems with this article, as I detail above. It also fails to reflect mainstream reliable sources and accord them due weight, significant portions have not been updated, and crucial events and mainstream viewpoints are simply missing (not only here, but also in daughter articles). Further, the article has a cadre of protective editors that revert all attempts and assure that no amount of discussion can result in improving or neutralizing the article. In defense of the pro-Chavez editors, others frequently use this talk page as a soapbox rather than relying on Wiki policy and reliable sources to improve the content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact SandyGerorgia has provided no mainstream sources and no explanation of why this article should be considered POV. Almost none of the critical information removed from the article was reliably sourced - it was mostly from op-eds in the Murdoch press and most of it was trivial, dated or turned out to be inaccurate. The fact that Pat Robertson wanted Chavez killed was part of the "Criticism of Chavez"! In what way does that make the article neutral? A man who writes a book saying the world is controlled by the "New World Order" and that God was behind 911 and the Haiti earthquake becomes a reliable source on Hugo Chavez? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If those sorts of edits occurred on the Criticism article, it was after I was chased off of these articles; it was very well sourced when I worked on it, and your characterization of the sources is completely inaccurate. At any rate, that work is now outdated; the content should be updated and included here, as I summarized in my unbalanced edit summaries which you removed (and would you remind restoring the dead link tag, please?). Reviewing the old Criticism article might not be helpful at this point because it's outdated, yet all of the criticism remains valid and needs to be reflected with newer sources. There is no mention of reliably sourced issues like escalating crime, the economic failures, corruption, consolidation of power in the executive and Chavez's control of the judiciary, press freedom and human rights concerns, etc. The end result here has been that all content reflecting mainstream reliable sources has been removed to daughter articles, from whence it then disappears and is rewritten to radical leftist sources, to the exclusion of mainstream souces (exhibits: Human rights in Venezuela, Media in Venezuela and Media representation of Hugo Chavez, 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, Economy of Venezuela, Globovision and RCTV). Crime and corruption seems to have gone missing entirely. I cleaned up Manuel Rosales from the dismal BLP vio that is was, and made a dent in Raul Baduel, but the tendentious editing and overreliance on radical left sources here needs to stop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

@ FourDeuces: You may be right; I need to look over the material. however, the POV tags do no harm to the article and serve as a notice that there is a debate over the content. they should remain in place until the issue is resolved.

@ Sandy: it would help if you could go through the article histories on the daughter articles and provide some diffs of the specific criticisms and sources you want to re-include. --Ludwigs2 21:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, I've got to promote FAC, and that often takes six to eight hours. At any rate, I'm not an admin, so can't access the deleted article, and I don't think going through edit histories will be helpful, because none of that content has been maintained or updated by the prevailing editors here. Better will be for me to list new sources as soon as I have time; the BBC profile above was only the first example of things that aren't even mentioned, or are glossed over, in this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia states that there are valid sources for re-adding criticism. My view is that they should provide them. Rather than presenting their own view of Chavez, it would be more constructive to provide views from reliable sources. Whether or not the BBC profile is a good article, we should really use articles from academic journals. The peer-review process will help us in determining the weight to be given to various praise and criticism. My fear is that this article will begin to appear like a story from Glenn Beck's website. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) @Ludwigs2. Just to give you something to start on while I'm busy, if you go all the way back to Aug 2006, you can see some of the criticism that used to be in the (very poorly written even then) article, which had just lost featured status. The economic, crime, corruption, consolidation of power issues remain valid, and can be cited to updated reliable sources. Back to June 2006, more content, and May 2006. Admittedly, the article was as poorly written and cited then as it is now, but the substance of the missing content on crime, corruption, consolidation of power in the executive, control of the judiciary, human rights, foreign policy debacles, economic issues, etc. remains valid, and can be sourced and updated. And I'm sure The Four Deuces knows there is a paucity of academic journal info on the topic, and that while editors here embrace extreme leftist and state-controlled sources like Venezuelanalysis, they reject maintream reliable sources as "US" or "corporate" bias. Peer review, as suggested by The4D, is unlikely to be helpful; like all other Wiki processes, it is backlogged, sustained by a few core editors, and there are very few editors on Wiki who know Venezuela, its politics, and history and also speak Spanish and are willing to engage a controversial POV article. I was chased off of these articles years ago by the ownership and tendentious editing (it always amounts to three-against-one), as have most other editors who have tried to engage; the article is at last shorter, but all balance is gone. Further, because of its length, this article attempts to use summary style, but relies on poorly maintained and biased daughter articles, and doesn't summarize their content even at that (which has meant that in order to work on this article, I've needed to take boatloads of time to analyze the bias in the daughter articles first). This is not a chore that can be done by one editor, or quickly. IMO, the POV tag should remain until these editors engage in collaborative editing and writing a neutral article, reflecting mainstream sources, even if that means addressing the bias in the daughter articles or re-adding and updating content here. Reverting anything not pro-Chavez has been the preferred editing method here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Tangent: just thought I'd post this depressing upcoming Signpost article, to confirm the problems at Peer review, where three editors are doing all the work: Wikipedia:FCDW/Reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Google Scholar gives 15,100 hits for "Hugo Chavez".[25] Questia has 106 books and 131 journal articles.[26] So much for "And I'm sure The Four Deuces knows there is a paucity of academic journal info on the topic". The claim that "editors here embrace extreme leftist and state-controlled sources like Venezuelanalysis.com" is unfounded, unless Sandy is referring to the BBC. Just look at the footnotes in the article. Instead of making sweeping generalizations, it would be helpful to provide specific examples. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear it; now get those journal articles and stop relying on the biased Venezuelanalysis in all these articles. Several of the daughter articles rely heavily on them. At any rate, the problems remain; critical content is absent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't find anything recent in your Questia search, and Chavez is now far more controversial than he was, say, five years ago, and there is far more evidence of his failed policies. Do you know how to sort the Questia results by date? 2001, 2004 and before publications aren't going to be entirely relevant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

And your google scholar search wasn't well delimited (maybe you need to add a Venezuela keyword), so that number is invalid. The first return is a dental article written by an H Chavez, "Assessment of oral implant mobility", and the second return is Exhibit I in my case, the Shifter article in Foreign Affairs that used to be cited but is no longer as far as I can tell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) These are the two statements in the article that are sourced to Venezuelanalysis.com:

"Every factory must be a school to educate, like Che Guevara said, to produce not only briquettes, steel, and aluminum, but also, above all, the new man and woman, the new society, the socialist society." — Hugo Chávez, at a May 2009 socialist transformation workshop [52]

After the coup, local cable channels, including RCTV, were also obliged to carry government programming, including Chavez's marathon speeches, which can last up to seven hours. RCTV could broadcast via cable and satellite and was widely viewable in Venezuela until January 24, 2010 [65] (also sourced to the New York Times.

In no sense can this be seen as "biased". The Four Deuces (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read what I write :) This article attempts to use Summary Style (but doesn't even do that), and several of the daughter articles that it relies on, and where issues have disappeared, are heavily sourced to Venezuelanalysis. And we still find an absence of Foreign Policy and Foreign Affairs scholarly sources here, for starters. Do you know how to sort the Questia data by date, so we can identify relevant, recent articles? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Although not all of the hits refer to President Hugo Chavez, the first ten hits include the following:

• 2. the Venezuelan Revolution: Hugo Chávez Talks to Marta Harnecker
• 3. In Search of Hugo Chávez
• 4. Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution
• 5. From bullets to ballots: The emergence of popular support for Hugo Chávez
• 6. Economic policy and the rise of Hugo Chavez
• 7. Empty Revolution-The Unfulfilled Promises of Hugo Chavez
• 9. Names and faces in the newspsu.edu
• 10. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez: Savior or Threat to Democracy

It may well be that many of the 15,100 hits do not provide relevant sources, but it does show that there are numerous sources available contrary to your statement about a "paucity of sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am reading what you write but you speak in vague generalities and all your claims have proved to be false. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, no they haven't. One of my first complaints is the removal of Shifter, which you identify (In Search of Hugo Chavez, #3). #2 is self. Do you have dates on the others? And do you know how to sort the Questia data so we can determine if any of those articles are still relevant? Otherwise, those hits could turn out to be useful in writing a neutral article, including the missing issues, and reducing the overreliance in daughter articles on Venezuelanalysis, then summarizing neutral content back to here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Although Michael Shifter's article in Foreign Affairs is of much higher value than the various editorials from the the Washington Times and Fox News, the magazine is not peer-reviewed and is devoted to American foreign policy. Do you know if Shifter has published anything about Chavez in academic publications? Here is a link to his article.[27] You can do advanced searches to get more helpful results on Google scholar. Certainly among all of them there must be something that can be used. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You pulled him up on Google scholar, and as I expected, you object because of the alleged "US bias". So what good is it going to do for me to put up sources here, when you reject anything on that basis, and yet we have daughter articles relying on a biased website, connected to Chavez, no journalist credentials, and no peer review whatsoever? The point is the same; whichever sources are provided are rejected, but content is still missing. (My area of editing is medical articles; I know how to evaluate academic and journal sources, and I also know cherrypicking.) Thanks for the link: I have his article, and many others, long buried in a file drawer when I gave up on these articles. I'm finished reading FAC, and will dig into this tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

fourdeuces - reliable sources do not need to be academic or scholarly sources. Journalistic sources with a good track record are perfectly acceptable, and sometimes preferred, depending on the topic. --Ludwigs2 02:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, and in this case (because events are still evolving) we don't have a lot of good scholarly sources, we have editors who object to some of them as "US biased", we have editors making unsubstantiated claims about so-and-so being a top-notch scholar when he's publishing under a regime that throw opponents in jail without a trial, and at any rate, we should be considering a preponderance of reliable sources per WP:UNDUE and whether we have covered the issues, from whatever sources are most reliable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers."[28] But of course we do not need Shifter's article for facts because they can be reliably sourced anyway. And I would object to opinions expressed in the article being presented as fact. What do we balance these opinions with? Far better to use an academic source that explains the various opinions and the degree of their acceptance, and whose facts can be directly reported. Back to the major issue, however, what is there in Shifter's article that is required to make this article NPOV? The Four Deuces (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

First, the straw man; no one is proposing to use an op-ed to source anything. Second, you will reject Shifter out-of-hand because you'll claim "US foreign policy bias", which forces us back to journalistic accounts. You want academic sources; there are few, yet you reject google scholar sources and US-based newspapers. This is why editors give up here; circles, chasing our tails. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, your comment "a regime that throw opponents in jail without a trial" doesn't sound like the more adecuate expression for an editor asking for neutrality. JRSP (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that I could have phrased it better for the benefit of those who don't know Venezuelan law and the problems with the judiciary (since these articles don't discuss them, that text is all gone, and articles discussing the judiciary in Venezuela haven't been written :) See the numerous human rights reports, well sourced on other articles (and expand my thought to include exile or being charged with a crime for political persecution). And for those not in the know here, unlike in the US, you can stay in jail in Venezuela (for a very long time) while you wait to be exonerated in a trial, if that occurs, since the judiciary is controlled and judges who let you out of jail are tried. See Trial of Eligio Cedeno, Arrest of Maria Lourdes Afiuni, Manuel Rosales, Leopoldo Lopez, Antonio Ledezma, Henrique Capriles Radonski, Raul Baduel, Enrique Mendoza and scores more that I've surely missed or whose articles aren't yet written. But yes, I should have phrased it more politely, as well-educated Venezuelans are wont to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the articles in Questia appear to come from Latin American Politics and Society, which is published by the "Center for Latin American Studies at the University of Miami".[29] Does anyone object to using articles from this journal? (Incidentally the US also holds people in prison without trial (see: Guantanamo Bay detention camp ). The Four Deuces (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

For the fifth or sixth time, I'll ask you for dates. Much of the thinking, writing and awareness of Chavez and Venezuela has changed since about 2007, and for that reason, journalistic accounts are sometimes the best we can do. Yes, if you pull up old journal reports that don't reflect current reality and the preponderance of current sources, reasonable editors would object. Ten years ago, plenty of people hoped Chavez's socialism would work; now the results are in. And we still have missing content, regardless of sources used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

So, should I understand that the article has been tagged as not NPOV because it does not say that Chávez leads a regime that throws opponents in jail, controls the judiciary and his socialism is not working because the results are in? JRSP (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Try again, JRSP :) That is the kind of logic, tail chasing and obfuscation that has resulted in article ownership here, and I'm not biting. The bottom line is that I'm going to expend an entire day providing sources that you all are going to reject, no matter how reliable they are, at the same time this article depends on daughter articles sourced to a partisan website that is funded by Chavez. Again, I think until/unless y'all decide to collaborate, the article should remain tagged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not biting you either, everyone has their bias but if we want to have a productive discussion on neutrality, personal bias must be kept on check. JRSP (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And I have acknowledged that my original post was poorly phrased and not very helpful. Chapter closed I hope (except that uninvolved editors might not know the laws and judiciary in Venezuela, so it did need to be explained, and the comparison with Guantanamo is ... well, all discussions end up at Hitler, right ?). Long day here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

More sources

(out) Here are some recent journal articles available on Questia:

• "The Missionary Politics of Hugo Chávez" Journal article by José Pedro Zúquete; Latin American Politics and Society, Vol. 50, 2008. (Chavez leadership style)
• "Iran & Venezuela: the "axis of Annoyance"" Journal article by Kavon "hak" Hakimzadeh; Military Review, Vol. 89, 2009. (Relationship between Iran and Venezuela)
• "Barrio Women and Popular Politics in Chávez's Venezuela" Journal article by Sujatha Fernandes; Latin American Politics and Society, Vol. 49, 2007. (Role of poor women in the new Venezuela)

I am sure that more articles can be found by going to a library. Speaking of Hitler, Shifter's article compares Chavez to Juan Peron, which is fine if you are trying to explain Chavez to a US foreign policy audience, but is an oversimplification.

The Four Deuces (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that info; I'm very tired and will digest and prepare more tomorrow. (Curiously, the reason I first chose the BBC to show content that was missing was because I know you all consider US sources biased.) I don't think we'll be using Shifter to compare Chavez to Peron (I've also lived in Argentina :) I will be preparing in sandbox sources that cite specifically the issues I've raised that are missing here (crime, economic deterioration, corruption, consolidation of power, control of the judiciary, human rights, foreign policy). I'll review the old text that was removed and whatever sources were there before, although I suspect that's going to be a waste of my time, as newer sources are available. At first glance, the journal articles you've posted look good, but they also seem to be confined to very narrow topics, so we might not find them ultimately very useful for an overview article, although they could help build daughter articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

PS, I've also queried User:Jbmurray ("I am an assistant professor in Latin American Studies at the University of British Columbia. Previously, I worked in the UK (where I am from), and I have a Ph.D from Duke University.") here (I know his work from multiple featured articles). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is very similar to the one above on Hugo Chavez and terrorism and Carlos the Jackal. Facts are shown, valid sources are cited, compliance with wikipedia policies is proved and what we get is a vehement opposition to adding the content by the same people that are doing the pro-chavez comments on this same post. I dont see why this quote made it to the main page "Every factory must be a school to educate, like Che Guevara said, to produce not only briquettes, steel, and aluminum, but also, above all, the new man and woman, the new society, the socialist society." and this other quote by Hugo Chavez pertaining his opinion on FARC can not make it:"I say this even though somebody might be bothered by it: the FARC and the ELN are not terrorist groups. They are armies, real armies ... that occupy a space in Colombia." He added that the two groups' "insurgent forces" have a goal, "a project," that is "Bolivarian" and that "we respect."--Specialcontributor75 (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The only reason to include the FARC comment is to paint Chavez as a terrorist, which is how neoconservatives see the world: you are either pro-American or pro-terrorist. It is much better to get reliable sources that explain the relationship between the Venezuelan government and FARC which is probably more nuanced. Can you refer us to any good studies on this subject? The Four Deuces (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

wow - that's a bit extreme, isn't it? if Chavez overtly supports FARC and ELN, then the article should note that he overtly supports FARC and ELN - if that is a direct quote from Chavez present in a reliable source, there aren't many grounds for excluding it. Please don't judge edits on the intentions of the editors; judge edits on their quality and pertinence to the subject at hand. --Ludwigs2 19:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly what goes on here. Three editors gang up against one to keep out any mention of FARC (and anything unfavorable to Chavez), although numerous mainstream reliable sources mention the fallout between Colombia and Venezuela (long sister republics) as a significant part of Chavez's foreign policy failures. Every one knows it, but the burden is on me to gather sources that anyone can find, and then those sources are rejected as "US foreign policy bias". Ludwigs, I appreciate your waiting due to my busy-ness elsewhere on FAC, but I haven't yet been able to work on gathering sources today. I could slop a few up here, but I'd rather do it right. Do we have enough here to leave the POV tag in place 'til tomorrow, when I can do more work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Information should be presented in a neutral point of view. Consider what is written in the FARC article:

Other governments, including the Venezuelan government, are less hostile towards the FARC-EP. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez publicly rejected their classification as "terrorists" in January 2008, considering them to be "real armies", and called on the Colombian and other governments to recognize the guerrillas as a “belligerent force”, arguing that this would then oblige them to renounce kidnappings and terror acts, and respect the Geneva Conventions.

You may believe that stating in the article that Chavez is an insane dictator who supports terrorism is neutral, but it seems one-sided to me. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

We're not talking about the FARC article; we're talking about this article and Chavez' foreign policy, of which his falling out with Colombia (among others) over FARC and related issues is quite notable and worthy of exploration. Who has proposed adding "Chavez is an insane dictator who supports terrorism"? Stay on topic, without the strawmen, please. We have no discussion of his foreign policy alliances and failings. I realize this article is frequently hit with wacky unsourced IP edits from both sides, so that you all are accustomed to simply reverting, but I notice a predilection for quickly reverting only one side, and a failure to take into account that many additions could be sourced if editors here weren't so busy reverting away anything not pro-Chavez. In other words, biting IPs and owning the article, which chases off potential contributors rather than teaching them correct sourcing to issues that are clearly noteworthy and sourcable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) 4D: Unlike you, I do not believe that Chavez' rejection of the 'terrorist' label implies that he is "an insane dictator who supports terrorism." As the saying goes, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, and Chavez is perfectly entitled to assert that he believes FARC to be a proper military force. where are you getting this 'insane dictator' thing, anyway? that's nowhere in the source you've quoted.

wp:NPOV relies on a balance of perspectives; by trying to exclude perspectives that you think make Chavez look bad (rather than trying to include and balance them in the article), you may be the one violating the principles of NPOV. do you see what I mean? --Ludwigs2 21:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

{{Chatterbox}}

I do not know why Sandy says "both sides". The only side I see is trying to make the article sound like something one would find on a neoconservative website. Between total belief in that view and what Chavez says is a whole range of viewpoints. We don't make the article fair and balanced by quoting "both sides" but by presenting the opinions of reasonable unbiased sources. The "insane dictator" comes from the original reasons for this discussion above: Anyone object to mentioning his mental illness? and He is a dictator. Incidentally it is not that I wish to exclude the neoconservative perspective, just that I believe it should give greater weight to mainstream views. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

please read wp:NPOV#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view, which explicitly contradicts what you'e said here. --Ludwigs2 23:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It says: "It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." It does not say that we should give undue emphasis to fringe views. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, though, all of the daughter articles, upon which this article relies for summary style do exactly that-- give undue weight to the fringe, Chavez-funded, operated out of non-journalists homes, known to be pro-Chavez, website Venezuelanalysis.com. And, all content critical of Chavez was deleted, with the claim that it was poorly sourced, now documented untrue. I'm glad you understand our articles shouldn't overrely on a partisan, biased website that is associated with Chavez, because there is much cleanup to be done here. This article also fails to reflect mainstream sources or to contain any critical commentary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what other people think. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I am less than a third of the way through the work of building a comprehensive list of sources; User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources is a work in progress, but it is unlikely I will be able to do more for at least a week. So far, I've only reconstructed the older deleted content, some of it outdated but all criticism still relevant today, and much worse; shown that The Four Deuces claim about poor sourcing in the deleted article was patently false; noted that Corruption in Venezuela did not see a full merge of content and went orphaned; and have only had time so far to search The Economist for sources. I still need to add many more mainstream reliable sources like the New York Times, BBC, LA Times, Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, and others. At any rate, the work I've done so far exhibits the extent to which all of these articles have been cleansed to a pro-Chavez hagiography with opposing viewpoints disappearing, and the number of reliable sources that have been ignored. I believe there is enough to justify the POV tag until I'm able to continue work here (or until editors here begin to work towards NPOV); I hope to find some progress the next time I look in here. Not only is the POV in this article-- it's in almost every single Venezuela article I've looked at-- and since this article relies on summary style, the cleanup of this and daughter will be difficult and time-consuming. I am dismayed that so much POV can overtake Wiki when one editor turns away for a few years and articles become owned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The essay on your user page explains American conservative and State Department explanations of various problems in Venezuela but does not provide explanations from independent sources or the Venezuelan government. Note that even though your opinion of Chavez may be the correct one, neurality requires us to present all significant views. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary and unhelpful, Four Deuces. It's not an essay, my "opinions" are expressed nowhere; it's merely the beginning of a collection of mainstream reliable sources, and very well sourced text that was summarily excised from all Venezuelan articles, as examples of missing content needed to present "all significant views". This article will be POV until some balance is presented. Doesn't mean all the old content needs to be resurrected, but those points do need to be addressed here and in daughter articles. Working collaboratively will lower talk page volume and speed up progress. Unhelpful commentary about "essays" doesn't advance anything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You should be aware that there is a difference between facts and analysis. While the facts in your collection are reliably sourced, the analysis presents a single point of view (even if it may be the correct one). The Four Deuces (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You're still missing the point; read the disclaimer I put at the top of it. It's only intended to show the relibly sourced issues missing in our coverage of Chavez. Of course balance is needed (and I'm only about a third finished in gathering sources). Now, we have no balance in any Wiki Chavez-related articles; we have an article that is exclusively favorable to Chavez with no critical content. And we have reliably sourced content that simply ... disappeared and never got merged, and some was orphaned. All of that content may not be necessary, but some mention and summary of the issues are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SandyGeorgia, the points she mentions need to be addressed to present a more neutral view on the current content available. The current Hugo Chavez's page presents a single point of view, mainly the point of view of pro-Chavez followers who seem to want to own the content of the page and dont allow for a constructive dialogue on how to incorporate these issues to the article.--Specialcontributor75 (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Economy

Brinkley, Joel (25 February 2010). "Venezuela on verge of collapse, thanks to Hugo Chavez". The Sacramento Bee. McClatchy-Tribune News Service. Retrieved 25 February 2010.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It is just another editorial. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Your definition of "editorial" is also incorrect; please confine your comments here to WP:V, WP:RS and article improvement, so as not to sidetrack discussions with WP:SOAP (it's already been pointed out on this talk page that you've been "a bit of a mule"). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It is an editorial which is why the Sacramento Bee put it under their "Opinions" section.[30] The title of the editorial is "Venezuela on verge of collapse, thanks to Hugo Chavez" - the second phrase is inappropriate for a news story. The opening line is clearly written in editorial style: "Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's flamboyant president, now should be the object of pity." Also please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The link that I provided shows it under "Lifestyle news", not opinion; if you can explain that discrepancy, I'll gladly retract. There are no personal attacks; stay on topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If you click on "Wire lifestyle news"[31] there is nothing listed but the story is clearly listed under opinion.[32] I do not know what they mean by "lifestyle". If you want I could post it to a noticeboard for outside views, but the style of the piece seems editorial. I do not think a news story would use the term "on verge of collapse", unless collapse was immanent. And the facts mentioned in the story (blackouts, showers) have already been reported in the news. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I cannot explain the discrepancy at the Sacramento Bee (which led me to think it was news), but I have now located it on another publication, listed as Opinion, so I will accept that as the case. My apologies to all; if no one minds, I'll archive this section to reduce talk page clutter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please go ahead. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)