Talk:Bolivarian propaganda

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 April 2012. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 April 2014. The result of the discussion was keep.

POV[edit]

From this first version which was riddled with POV, original research, poor sourcing, and in need of copyediting, I've done what cleanup I can to remove OR, replace sources, and copyedit;[1] someone who has access to the books and journal articles may be able to address the POV issues and better organize the content. I note that the editor who tagged it POV [2] did not justify or explain that tag on talk, but it is apparent that all POVs are not present. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ironically this page reads a lot like propaganda - many unsubstantiated equivalences and claims (just off the top of my head, the definition of participatory democracy is wildly wrong and the reactive nature of much of chavez's media policy is not mentioned once despite being probably the main factor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.186.204 (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say hello to the CIA agent that wrote this disgrace of an article 78.145.183.201 (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Education[edit]

I found criticisms of the new educational policies being proposed by the Venezuelan government. Before people follow my contribs and delete my work, please have a polite discussion with me about any necessary changes.--Zfigueroa (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article from a local newspaper is about a meeting held by teachers on Margarita and Coche islands. After summarizing their demands for increased pay and retirement benefits, the article contains one sentence about these teachers "demanding an end to the indoctrination of children by educators" (referring specifically to holidays named after the late President). This is hardly newsworthy (that is why it is covered only in a local newspaper), much less deserving of mention in an encyclopedia entry! Moreover, for you to write as if this small group of teachers represented "teachers in Venezuela"--as you did--is misleading and deceptive. Riothero (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete?[edit]

I'm considering re-listing this article for deletion. There is no notability. Neither the term "Bolivarian propaganda" nor any other related terms is used by any reliable source. The article is a mix of original research (doesn't matter if it's based on sources or not), quoting random sentences from random opinion articles as they fit to make a generalized view in the view of the Wikipedia's article's author(s), mixing up random genrealized criticism of the government which has no notability or validity. Wikipedia articles cannot quote random lines from random sources and then make an opinion based on that and transfer it to the reader. Ultimately, this article is unfixable and suffers from systematical problems. You cannot quote random stuff and then make conclusions from that, which is the only thing this article can ever do because "Bolivarian propaganda" or related terms are terms which simply do not exist. There are no articles like "Obamaist propaganda" and stuff like that. All political views have campaigns to support them. This is just an article used as an outlet for random right-wing propaganda, with the weak bridge of "Bolivarian propaganda" as topic. Zozs (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree It should be kept as it is an important piece of Chavez's story. There is quite a bit of sources saying that there is obvious propaganda being use to promote his ideologies. It's not all "right-wing propaganda" either. I doubt that The New York Times, BBC, The Boston Globe and CATO Institute can be called "right-wing". We could possibly rename the article to something more suitable though.--Zfigueroa (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mentions which are simply talking about a political campaign and never elaborate. Buzzwords. Nonsense which does not warrant the creation of an article. And "Bolivarian campaign" or such a term would be much more appropriate, although this article should really just be deleted if it is going to look ANYTHING at all like it does now. Zozs (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has not changed much since it was decided to KEEP back in April 2012. It was a unanimous decision. Until my recent edits involving education and some pictures added, there was no discussion about deleting this article. In fact, there were only 10 edits since the decision and when I began editing the article. Deleting this article is nonsense.--Zfigueroa (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Zozs that "Bolivarian propaganda" does not exist (as a notable topic in-itself) any more than "Obamaist propaganda" or, for that matter, "anti-Chavez propaganda" (for which there is also plenty of evidence). The labeling of something as "propaganda" (rather than mere expressions of support for an ideology, certain political views), except in notable cases, is POV. "Bolivaran propaganda" has nowhere near the amount of support as Nazi propaganda or Propaganda in the Soviet Union! The article refers only to opinions/allegations or to normal media campaigns and the like (that do not justify being labeled 'propaganda'). This material is more appropriate (and in some cases is already been covered) within existing articles. (For example, Media of Venezuela, Censorship_in_Venezuela, Community and alternative media in Venezuela, Media representation of Hugo Chávez, Television in Venezuela, Aló Presidente, 'in popular culture' sections of Hugo Chavez, Chavismo, Bolivarian Revolution pages, on the individual pages for various presidential, legislative, regional, muncipal elections, etc.). -- Riothero (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article was also debated in the last discussion of deletion. However in the end, they agreed on the name and that the article should not be deleted.--Zfigueroa (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re-listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolivarian propaganda (2nd nomination). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zozs (talk • contribs) 01:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will not make edit[edit]

I said I would make an edit regarding the source of Manwaring. However, it is already cited so never mind.--Zfigueroa (talk) 06:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

Everyone: Do you approve or disapprove of moving the article to "Bolivarian political campaign"? (You can also suggest other names.) Zozs (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree --- Maybe not "political campaign" as it sounds more like a domestic campaign. A lot of issues involved in the article are international as well as domestic.--Zfigueroa (talk) 04:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you suggest? Zozs (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the idea of renaming the article with a less controversial title, like "Bolivarian influence". --Jamez42 (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the case, we should simply merge the article with one of our dozens of other Bolivarspam articles. bobrayner (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Bolivarian Influence" would be a title of multiple hats as it could be the act of influencing or the result of the influence. It could be confusing for readers since the majority of the article is about the act and not the result. For example, we have the discussion of the action of cadenas in the article but we don't have the result of those cadenas and we most likely won't. The term "propaganda" would be more suitable in this case since it is the action of influence and not the result.--Zfigueroa (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree --- I see no reason in renaming it. The content is very clear on exactly "what" is it, son it would be unnecessary to rename it. --yeah_93 (talk) 05:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the names proposed so far, as none of them relate to the phenom covered in the article. Propaganda is not influence or a political campaign. If someone comes up with an accurate name, I would consider. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism section[edit]

Instead of accusing others of spreading "propaganda", please use sources to contradict claims. With state media and ministries handing out anti-Semitic leaflets and blaming them for being "responsible for 90% of world poverty and imperialist wars", I'm pretty sure it can be called Bolivarian propaganda. If you look at the dissemination of the propaganda, these tools of anti-Semitism use "emotional arguments to gain attention, exploit the fears (either real or imagined) of the population, create external enemies for scapegoat purposes, and produce nationalism within the population".--Zfigueroa (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed anti-semitism section violates several of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:CHERRYPICKING--Riothero (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So any anti-Semitic propaganda by the Nazi's does not comply to WP policies as well since it is a negative POV of the Nazi's? I admit the Venezuelan government is definitely not to the point of such criticisms by Nazi Germany, but when multiple organizations say that anti-Semitic propaganda is sponsored, promoted and is even a "core" part of the Venezuelan government's propaganda, then it should be allowed no matter how a single user feels it is POV.

As for the rest of the WP policies you mentioned, WP:OR, WP:FRINGE and WP:RS are being followed since this is not a fringe theory countering a mainstream view since multiple reliable sources make these statements (Wall street Journal, World Jewish Congress, etc.). So please, if you personally find this NPOV, just tag the section for other users to comment on and stop starting edit wars with me.

Best regards,--Zfigueroa (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want me to do? Explain to you, line-by-line, how your edit violates the majority of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Allright. Working on it. Meanwhile, as you must realize that this is a controversial topic, it is inappropriate to leave such contested work in the current version of the article.--Riothero (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When sources say anti-Semitic propaganda is a "core" part of the Venezuelan government's propaganda mission, it is to be noted in this article. It's not a personal belief of mine, it is what multiple sources have said. If there is work countering this, then I would be much happier because then I would know there is less hatred in the world. I don't like being the bearer of bad news. I just look deeper into reliable sources and add information to articles from those reliable sources. I know someone will say I'm just soapboxing in this edit, but I just want to be on the same page as my fellow users.--Zfigueroa (talk) 06:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from recent additions to the "Allegations of Antisemitism" section on the hugo chavez article, and from sections of the "History of the Jews in Venezuela" article, this is quite a controversial topic. the majority of these allegations were disputed and shown to be the result of misunderstandings. Most of the alleged anti-semitic remarks you mention are merely statements cricizing policies of the state of Israel or Zionism. They do not constitute evidence of support for anti-semitism.

'anti-semitic' leaflets "were available" in a government office waiting room. curious anecdotal evidence. who placed the leaflets there? who published them? in what sense were they 'anti-semitic'? what exactly did they say?

the inclusion of the photo of anti-semitic graffiti is inflammatory/outrageous. there is no way to verify or authenticate the identity of its author. the investigation into the 2009 synagogue attacks (a robbery disguised to look like vandalism) found that "the purpose of the grafitti with anti-Semitic messages that were observed on the walls had two purposes, first, to undermine the investigation, and second, to draw attention to the national government".

the statement "Chavez's opposition to Zionism and close relations with Iran, led to accusations of antisemitism" has nothing whatsoever to do with "bolivarian propaganda".

An opinion piece for the Gatestone Institute, a conservative think-tank where "right-wingers (along with Alan Dershowitz) champion hawkish, often "pro-Israel" policies and, not infrequently, rattle off Islamophobic blogposts", is not a reliable source. In claiming that "anti-Semitic propaganda is the core of Chavez's political thinking and propaganda" (no evidence is given to support this claim), the author is either woefully ignorant of (Chavismo, Bolivarianism, Socialism of the 21st century, etc.) or is deliberately lying; either conclusion would discredit this as a reliable source of information.

the motive behind the 2009 attack on a Caracas synagogue was robbery, not anti-semitism; an investigation revealed that it was an 'inside job', organized by a bodyguard of a rabbi. the allegation that the government somehow inspired the attack has been thoroughouly debunked. moreover, the allegations themselves were repudiated by the Venezuelan Israeli Association.

claims that the state-media's "attacks" on Caprile were "anti-semitic" have no basis in fact. in the quote you provide, the WSJ alleges that the state-media's campaign against Capriles "insinuated" that he "was, among other things, a homosexual and a Zionist agent". even if an opinion piece in the state-media had *directly* called Capriles a "Zionist agent", it would still not be "anti-semitic" due to the fact that Judaism and Zionism are not the same thing (Zionism is a specific political movement that defends the policies of the Israeli state). to claim Capriles was attacked for being a "Catholic of Jewish ancestry" is outright deception.

The "Chavez-sponsored media" referred to here is actually Aporrea.com, an online community of tens of thousands; it is not "Chavez-sponsored", not state-owned, or state-run, or whatever. Furthermore, no evidence is cited to support of verify claims/unfounded assertations. So what constitutes an "anti-Jewish text"? Is it anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, or actually anti-semitic? The source admits that "this kind of tally may blur the distinction between criticisms of Israeli policies and sheer anti-Semitism", and resorts to subjective interpretions of "classically anti-Semitic themes, tones, and sentiments" while providing zero examples.

Since I'm tired, let's assume that the last section "Radio Nacional de Venezuela" cites two instances of genuine anti-semitic remarks (although neither in fact appear to be such--the first is clearly an attack on wealthy individuals, not on Jews in themselves---contrasting "rich Jews" to "working-class Jews, Communist Jews, and poor Jews"; all the information about the second instance is that an anti-Semitic text was recommended, but for unknown purposes--curiously, no context for the book recommendation is provided). So, two isolated incidents.

much cherrypicking from sources, omitting information such as Chavez reaffirming his respect for Judaism ("We respect and love the Jewish people"), the government's meeting with the Jewish community, the Jewish community's support of the government, its defense of Chavez and the Venezuelan government from accusations of anti-semitism, etc..

You are not the 'bearer of bad news'. You are the bearer of series of allegations based on misleading or zero support--which, when examined individually and honestly, amount to nothing. None of this establishes antisemitism as a notable feature of 'Bolivarian propaganda'. Section is unwarranted, should be removed in toto. --Riothero (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a response to your list:

The leaflets were at the Venezuelan government's waiting room long enough (or noticed by a enough people, etc.) for them to be reported by the United States Department of State. I don't think such thing would be reported in an global anti-Semitism report if it wasn't significant (and please don't go into conspiracy of US intervention, let's stick to the sources).

The inclusion of the graffiti is to show the influence or the possible influencing that had occurred in Venezuela. Having good faith in the user who contributed the image is recommended.

I will remove the Chavez accusations as you are correct that it does not have a relation to the article.

Gatestone may be deemed conservative or even pro-Israel by some, but is still considered reliable under WP policy. Also, it is not an opinion piece, it is a report from Anna Mahjar-Barducci, a journalist belonging to the organization.

I did not know that the Caracas synagogue was robbed. Please provide the details if you could to provide both sides to the story.

Let's not even go into this. The sources say what the sources say.

The Radio Nacional de Venezuela "Hitler's partners were Jews" still is anti-Semitic according to the source, but you can paint you own picture if you want. It is weird how the same government-run organization had been spreading anti-Semitic ideas to its listeners for nearly 5 years.

What Chavez and his government say and what they do are two different things. The propaganda and information from reliable sources is only focused on in my edits as it is the topic of this article. I did not try to cherry pick. Please refrain from these accusations.

I am glad that you made this list and we are communicating Riothero. I will make some changes to the article. Thank you for understanding,--Zfigueroa (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense to include unfounded allegations if it is then necessary to issue a correction for each one. The attempt to depict the Chavez government as anti-semitic (typically made by his political adversaries, e.g. Gatestone, Thor Halvorssen, the U.S. State Department) has failed. These are serious charges and they should not be made lightly. None of the allegations of anti-semitism on the part of Chavez or his administration hold up to a moment's scrutiny--quite simply because there is no evidence of anti-semitism to support them. Very few examples are offered at all: i.e. criticism of Capriles for representing Zionist thought and supporting Israeli state policy. As you seen, even then, this does not constitute evidence of anti-semitism, as it mistakenly conflates Zionist ideology and Israeli state policy with Judaism. The same is true if there are other examples: these are nearly all isolated instances (an opinion piece on a website, a radio announcer) that are open to interpretations, clear exceptions to the rule, and cannot be more loosely associated with Chavez or his government; and it is highly dubious to regard every single government employee as representative spokesperons for the Venezuelan government. (There is no grounds here for arguing that there exists a division between "what they say" and "what they do" here--what is "what they do"? all of the allegations of anti-semitism that you mention occur at the level of 'speech', and there is no evidence that government has sanctioned antisemitic speech.)--Riothero (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please take off your tin foil hat and recognize reliable sources according to WP:RS instead of sharing personal ideas. What is shared is what is from sources.--Zfigueroa (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the title of the section in order to cover both antisemitism and anti-Zionism. I am not saying that every employee represents the government, but sources say that anti-Semitic ideas shared by the organization is a common thing, especially since it had happened for nearly five years without any dramatic changes.

What I meant by what they say and what they do is the Venezuelan government says they respect the Jewish community, yet what they do, according to sources, is allow their own state-media organizations to share anti-Semitic ideologies for a prolonged amount of time, have their intelligence agency spy on their communities due to conspiracies and continue strong anti-Israel rhetoric. You cannot call a prolonged attack by the state-media, the government and clandestine operations by SEBIN "isolated instances", especially when all are according to sources and are not personal beliefs.--Zfigueroa (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the entire section is comprised almost entirely of allegations by non-reliable sources, and cites few if any examples of anti-semitism (and even then there is nothing to support that it was officially sanctioned--because it has never been). The only source that claims anti-semitism is a NOTABLE feature of 'Bolivarian propagada' (a term that is used mostly by the Bolivarian movement's critics, anyway) is also not-reliable. This is clearly at odds with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Remove these and what are we left with? -- Riothero (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-relaible according to you? Even if sources are biased, they are reliable according to WP policy.--Zfigueroa (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable according to you?--Riothero (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable according to WP and has info that applies to this article.--Zfigueroa (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Our Chavez" does not belong[edit]

What does this have to do with 'Bolivarian propaganda'?--Riothero (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuelan Catholic bishops accused the government of trying to "screw in the principles and values which the revolution wants to impose, a kind of secular religion". That is pretty fitting for a propaganda article.--Zfigueroa (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So the justification for its inclusion in this article is an anti-government POV? There can be no clearer indication of POV-pushing than this. If this page is to continue being used as compendium of accusations by opponents and critics of the Bolivarian movement, I propose that the article be moved to "Criticism of Bolivarian Propaganda" or something like it. Otherwise it deserves to be nominated for deletion once again.--Riothero (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

in your edit summary (reverting my edit), you ask me to "associate [myself] with the definition of propaganda". it may suprise you to learn that the definition of 'propaganda' is not "anything Zfigueroa says it is". propaganda is defined by wiktionary as "A concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people." wikipedia's page defines it as "a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of a population toward some cause or position". i may be obtuse but i don't see how the "chávez nuestro" poem meets this definition.--Riothero (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the sources and those involved in their work, the "modified prayer" was "idolatrous" and "propaganda" among other things. Since you personally see it as a "poem", you may add a dispute tag, but it won't change the relevance of what reliable sources state.--Zfigueroa (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the point is in trying to talk to you because you never respond to my points. you asked me to "associated [myself] with the definition of propaganda", and i did. please explain to me how the "chávez nuestro" poem meets this definition. the opinionated sources you cite cannot be used as a basis for this determination.--Riothero (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every source is opinionated according to you.--Zfigueroa (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

once again, you evade all efforts on my part to resolve this dispute with you. the recitation of this poem at a party congress (by and for party members) does not constitute 'propaganda' according to the definition which you had me look up! it is not true that i regard "every source" as 'opinionated'--only those identified as such by the source. you seem to think that, if a reliable source (like CNN) quotes someone's opinion, that opinion ought not be considered POV. when i ask you to explain why this example constitutes 'propaganda', you cite these opinions!--Riothero (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CNN says that Christians in Venezuela see it as propaganda. La Verdad compares it to "Nazi propaganda". The "poem" or "modified prayer" (whatever floats your boat) was promoted by President Maduro himself to all Venezuelans to recite in order to continue the "values of Chavez".--Zfigueroa (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The opinions of Christians... are opinions. And the La Verdad article is also opinionated. There must be reliable sources for everything purportedly connected to 'Bolivarian propaganda'.--Riothero (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Each example of propaganda is from the opinion or critique of one who disseminates it. The creation of a "delegates prayer" that is encouraged by President Maduro for Venezuelans in order to follow "values of Chavez" which is produced by a delegate of the Committee on Communication and Propaganda of PSUV-Táchira. Please see definition of propaganda.--Zfigueroa (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am having trouble following your defense of POV in the article. Could you please use clear, complete sentences to explain your position? Also, don't forget to sign your comments.--Riothero (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the signature reminder, just forgot so I added it. Anyways, there is no POV trying to be placed. I tried to include the Venezuelan government's response too so there would not be just one POV. I am not holding a position either, just placing cited information from reliable sources on Wikipedia. Pardon my grammar as I am not the best with English, but I was just explaining how the "delegates prayer" is a form of propaganda according to these reliable sources, especially when it is coming from a self-titled propaganda committee.--Zfigueroa (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the poem is not "a form of propaganda according to these reliable sources"! You are citing opinions cited by reliable sources (and opinionated sources) as if they were themselves reliable. It is the same as if I were to cite a New York Times article quoting an assertion made by Nicolas Maduro, and then insisted that Maduro's assertion was true because the New York Times is a reliable source! This is a misuse of "reliable sources".--Riothero (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If President Maduro were to say "this is due to the CIA" it would be placed into an article saying "According to President Maduro, this was due to the CIA". CNN says in their article that Christians in Venezuela were offended, saying that "the words of a prayer found in the books of Matthew and Luke in the Bible should not be changed for political propaganda or any other purposes" and that La Verdad said that it was "from the mind of Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda father". Both of these examples are from reliable sources and attributed to them properly.--Zfigueroa (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are basing YOUR decision to mention the poem in this article on these POV sources --the opinions of some Christians in Venezuela quoted by CNN!! You seem to think that an opinion can be considered reliable if it is properly cited (and perhaps expressed in mainstream media). This seems to me your way of attempting to 'spin' POV into NPOV, and it is not legitimate. It is coming across as though you are using the fact that an opinion exists--in lieu of reliable sources making the connection between one thing and another (in this case, a poem recited by a delegate at a party meeting to something called "Bolivarian Propaganda"--to go ahead and make this unfounded connection anyway. It is on this POV basis that you proceed to give undue weight by providing outrageously excessive details (in this case, in describing the particular incident of a delegate reciting a poem at a meeting of her political party, and its reaction, etc). If you are truly editting in good faith, I would ask you to please stop using what is in my view a dishonest tactic.--Riothero (talk) 09:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you call it a "poem" when the author/delegate, critics, and others call it a "prayer"? The only person I have read to call it a "poem" is President Maduro and the Venezuelan government's RNV (earlier in the article about the author calling it the "prayer of the delegates".--ZiaLater (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela Information Office[edit]

This cited information was removed. This was because Riothero accused me original research. I have not produced any original research.

Please read:

In The Threat Closer to Home: Hugo Chavez and the War Against America, Douglas Schoen and Michael Rowan stated that the VIO was used for one of Hugo Chávez's "modern propaganda techniques". It was also criticized for allegedly being "devoted to spreading misinformation to the U.S. media".

I did not claim it was propaganda because I thought so, I merely placed what sources said into the article. May I please have some good faith once in awhile?--ZiaLater (talk) 06:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finally! This is what I am talking about. Neither of these are reliable sources, by any stretch of the imagination. Schoen--currently a Fox News contributer and a columnist for Newsmax--was fired in disgrace from his polling firm after publishing fake exit polls (claiming Chavez lost)--in association with an anti-Chavez NGO, on the day of the Venezuelan recall referendum of 2004, contributing to quite a scandal. Moreover, Rowan (the co-author) is also a political consultant, who advised the presidential campaign of Manuel Rosales, the opposition candidate who challenged Chavez, in the Venezuelan presidential election of 2006. This is the opposite of impartial. And I will ASSUME GOOD FAITH that you were not intentionally concealing the fact that the author of the second source is Frank Gaffney--in the words of Mbinebri, "a right-wing conspiracy theorist who's peddled all kinds of heinous lies—dude is incredibly unreliable").--Riothero (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First off, it did not say that Schoen was fired from his polling firm, he was just replaced as representative in Venezuela for an unmentioned reason. Secondly, I forgot about Gaffney, I just used stuff that was not removed so he will be out of the picture in future edits. On the issue of reliability, according to Wikipedia: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." In this case, Schoen and Rowen are reliable, but they just need to be attributed. I will also present other sources in the near future as well.--ZiaLater (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When the basis for your claim justifying the inclusion of certain material in a given article is a non-neutral source, that may be an indication of POV-pushing, and original research. If mainstream, neutral sources cannot be found that identify something as "Bolivarian propaganda"--and if the only support comes from non-neutral sources--then such POV claims should not be pushed on Wikipedia.--Riothero (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are still reliable. I am currently looking for the other POV as well since I know there is a lot of support out there as well.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not. The only thing that justifies your decision to include the VIO in an article titled "Bolivarian Propaganda" is a non-neutral source by political consultants affiliated (as campaign advisor and pollster) with the ('anti-Bolivarian') opposition. If you do find sources that are reliable, I would of course withdraw my objection.--Riothero (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how Schoen is opposition.--ZiaLater (talk) 05:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post's Linda Robinson, in a review of the book you cite as a "reliable source" (!), said this about its authors (Douglas Schoen and Michael Rowan): "They are far from impartial observers. Both Douglas Schoen and Michael Rowan are political consultants who worked for the opposition candidate whom Chávez defeated in 2006. They believe that Chávez manipulated that vote, just as they contend that he rigged the results of a 2004 recall effort mounted by the civic opposition movement Súmate ("Join up"), for which the authors also worked." The review also says that "Schoen and Rowan undermine their argument with hyperbole and unsupported allegations". I believe that the same "hyperbole and unsupported allegations" have infected this article to an absurd and unfortunate degree.--Riothero (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuelan ambassador said that the work commissioned by the VIO was "positive spin" himself, which according to WP, spin is "a form of propaganda, achieved through providing an interpretation of an event or campaign to persuade public opinion in favor or against a certain organization or public figure". Another author states that VIO lobbyists "canvassed" influential media in the United States, which the verb "canvass" according to Merriam Webster is "to go through (a district) or go to (persons) in order to solicit orders or political support or to determine opinions or sentiments".--ZiaLater (talk) 02:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is not supported by your sources. In the New York Times article (that you cite), the Venezuelan ambassador does NOT say that "the work commissioned by the VIO was 'positive spin'" (as you claim). (Not only does he NOT say the work was "positive spin", he also does NOT say it was commissioned by the VIO.) It seems you have misread. With regard to your second point, putting aside that fact that "canvas" is quite certainly not the same word as "propaganda", the book that you cite for this should not for a second be mistaken as a "reliable source". It is obviously a right-wing political hit piece; "A.C. Clark" is itself a pseudonym. I want to continue assuming good faith, but your obstinance when it comes to things like this, and your (over-)reliance on non-neutral sources that push a particular POV across several Venezuela-related articles are pushing the limits.--Riothero (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that I think it is inappropriate behavior on your part to (re-)insert material that you know is contentious and in dispute while efforts to resolve that dispute are underway on the talk page.--Riothero (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will deny any POV accusations but I will apologize for the NYT misread. Would it make it more neutral to say something like "several critics say the VIO issued propaganda in the United States" or something like that? The sources are there and like said before, reliable sources do not have to be unbiased. I hope you understand I am not pushing a POV but only contributing to this article.--ZiaLater (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, the only thing that you are contributing is POV ('anti-Bolivarian propaganda' to be precise). Note the irony. Very clearly... your decision to include the VIO in this article rests entirely upon POV sources. I have tried in good faith, and in the simplest terms, to explain to you why this constitutes a violation of basic Wikipedia principles and guidelines. The VIO section must go.--Riothero (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only policy violation here is Riothero's systematic removal of well-sourced content. Time to stop that. bobrayner (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, it would bolster your credible if you were actually to respond to the substantial comments I've made here (and on other talk pages), rather than merely slinging ad hominem at me for refusing to tolerate blatant POV-pushing. The content under dispute is not "well-sourced", as you claim, since the basis for its inclusion in the present article on "propaganda" rests entirely upon POV sources (as I've demonstrated above).--Riothero (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your objections would be more credible if you weren't simply systematically reverting any attempt to fix your article's NPOV problems, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Stop it. bobrayner (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Riothero, the discussion of whether the sources in question are reliable happened years ago, on noticeboards. Please stop reverting against consensus and blanking sourced text. Discuss, don't edit war. Clark and Schoen are reliable sources; that you disagree with their POV does not make them unreliable (nor does pseudonymous authorship in a country where dissent can get you jailed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Rowan (the co-author) is also a political consultant, who advised the presidential campaign of Manuel Rosales, the opposition candidate who challenged Chavez, in the Venezuelan presidential election of 2006. This is the opposite of impartial."--Tellectualin (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he advised them doesn't mean he is opposition. Look at Podemos in Spain, they had members advise Hugo Chavez but they try to distance themselves from him now.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just like the fact that Weisbrot has been an "advisor" to the Chavez govt (according to a non-RS) does not make him part of the mythical "Bolivarian Propaganda" network?Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manwaring[edit]

I object to Manwaring's paper being cited as a reliable source in this article. A retired U.S. Army colonel, Manwaring is currently a research professor of Military Strategy in the Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) of the U.S. Army War College. The SSI is designed to provide strategic analysis and recommendations for the U.S. Army and the Department of Defense, and Manwaring's paper on Venezuela is hosted on the "strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil" domain.--Riothero (talk) 07:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see anything wrong with the source. The problem is that it was only passing references to "propaganda" (often in "scare quotes", which is then used as a coatrack to put in every negative thing about Venezuelan government information that editors can find. TFD (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current popularity of Nicolas Maduro[edit]

This new could be interesting for this article. --The_Photographer (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent research shows how the Bolivarian Propaganda was used disproportionately. Information that may be added to the article --The_Photographer (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Homework school[edit]

The Venezuelan state has launched a nationwide program with a mandatory task for all schools, so that children write a letter to Obama to lift the sentence of Venezuela on certain corrupt officials. It would be interesting to add this to the Education section. --The_Photographer (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing Tellectualin (Riothero)[edit]

Sorry, I accidentally hit enter before I could explain in edit summary. The images show the antisemitism that spread in Venezuela. Most reliable sources attribute the dissemination of antisemitic influences to the Venezuelan government. One of the images on the Israeli Embassy even features a hammer and sickle with the abbreviations of the Venezuelan government's Communist Party of Venezuela's youth wing, Juventud Comunista de Venezuela (JCV). The other image features popular sentiment spread by the Venezuelan government supporting a free Palestine and such. Public murals and graffiti are encouraged by National Commission of Propaganda, Agitation and Communication.[3]--ZiaLater (talk) 04:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH + WP:OR - Proposal to delete, possibly salvaging some information for use in other articles.[edit]

Can someone explain to me why this article is not a classic SYNTH/OR? "Bolivarian propaganda" has no more status as a distinct topic than "Anti-Bolivarian Propaganda". Needless to say, nothing on google books or google scholar even hints at these topics being important or identifiable areas of research. They exist as areas of research only in the minds of the editors, who want to cobble together a new field of study, largely as a vehicle for their own propaganda. It's like all the applicable policies regarding NPOV, SYNTH, OR and NOTABILITY have been completely forgotten.

I mean really - what's next? Articles on "Anti-Putin Propaganda", "GOP Propaganda", "Blairite Propaganda", ... "[Insert your own PR menace] propaganda"? Because this is exactly where it leads. The main reason these other articles don't exist is because the POV-climate on these topics is not lopsided enough to ram them through. But in the case of Chavismo, anything goes apparently. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like previous proposals to delete have gotten nowhere. People like the topic too much. Guess I'll be off to to create some high-quality articles of the same type: "New Labour Propaganda", "Putin Propganda" (hey that's actually notable), "Wall Street Propaganda" and so on. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of "google books", but the first time I read some comprehensive work of the systematic use of propaganda by the venezuelan govt was seven years ago by Marcelino Bisbal and others researchers in the ground. Since then they have been using many names to describe it, but the fact is there is a machinery dedicated exclusively to this, name it the "Sistema Nacional de Medios Públicos". That said, the title seen a little bit odd, but the content seems ok. Cheers, --Oscar_. (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From what I believe was in previous discussions is that "Bolivarian propaganda" pertains to the "Bolivarian Government of Venezuela". That's mainly what this article is about. Propaganda under the Bolivarian government is a very real thing that is talked about in scholarly books and articles but it hasn't been designated a specific title except for the generic "Venezuelan propaganda" or something along those lines. "Venezuelan propaganda" does not fit as the title as this may be seen as a historic view of propaganda in Venezuela, not the history of propaganda under the Bolivarian Government of Venezuela. Another proposal for the name may be something like "Propaganda in Bolivarian Venezuela" or something of the sort, yet again, this may be seen as a generic "Venezuelan propaganda" article since that is close to the country's official name.--ZiaLater (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not include some of this this under Media in Venezuela? When you start with a title like "Bolivarian Propaganda", there is no way to avoid SYNTH and POV. The POV implications of subsuming everything - from government PR efforts to everything written by it's supporters - under the category "propaganda" should be obvious. Every attempt by a govt to manipulate the media could be labelled "propaganda", and anyone who supports said govt (regardless of reasons) can be labelled a propagandist. Since there are no authoritative and balanced sources to guide us in covering the issue, there is no way to figure out what's UNDUE. Consequently we have a SYNTH problem. We do have many RS's that criticize the Venezuelan government's manipulation of the media, but we have almost no sources that elevate "Bolivarian propaganda" to the status of a distinct topic. Of course, one could find instances of the word "propaganda" being used, but the same can be said in reference to virtually any political actor (including the supposed "Anti-Bolivarian Propaganda" of the opposition and its allies in the American media).

I will note that there are cases where "propaganda" is a valid topic. Instances of war propaganda (often labelled as such by the propagandists themselves), Soviet Agit-Prop etc. These are all reliable sourced topics. But these articles are rare because few cases meet the NPOV/NOTABLE/SYNTH criteria.

There is nothing wrong with covering Chavista PR or it's mishandling of the media or noting the biases of its supporters abroad (CEPR, VA etc.). But you cannot simply label it all "propaganda" (especially the views of an independent organization like CEPR) and you cannot create an article that focuses solely on the POV-laden "propaganda" angle of these topics. You can however include coverage of these issues in an article with legitimate scope, such as Media in Venezuela.

To add yet another analogy, imagine I started an article called "The crimes of American Imperialism". Formally, I could say that some of the information in the article was "factual" and even "reliably sourced". But I would omit everything about US foreign policy that did not fit the POV dictated by the title, and I would have licence to include anything and everything that might conceivably be described as a "crime". How far would I get in writing such an article (not that I have any desire to do so)? How far would I get in writing an article on "GOP propaganda" or "DLC propaganda" which painted all their political supporters as "propagandists"? I could easily create articles on "Zionist", Russian or - with a little less justification - Iranian "propaganda". And so on, ad infinitum. In fact, in writing such articles I would be the one guilty of using wikipedia as a propaganda platform. Articles do get deleted for POV/SYNTH, even if the bias is subtle and the content is partially sourced. I think we should treat Venezuela like all other countries and cover PR and media policy under Media in county X. Just as we should cover the supposed misdeeds of any regime in the relevant well-scoped articles. That way we can at least entertain the hope of covering these topics in a balanced and contextualized way.Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Bolivarian propaganda. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.elpais.es/p/d/20010211/internac/chavez.htm
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1204310378.pdf
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2006/01/30/venezuelan_oil_marks_chavezs_latest_bid_to_win_over_us/
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=2006anarchist_wsf
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://idu.org/news.aspx?id=1857

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

propaganda?[edit]

seems to me there is a POV there. Don't have time to address at the moment. Elinruby (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several people have noted this, including myself. The article is scoped in such a way as to guarantee major POV-problems. In fact the scope guarantees that the article itself becomes a piece of opposition propaganda. There is nothing wrong with propaganda, but Wikipedia is not the proper vehicle. Frankly, I think it meets all the criteria for deletion. But since this is about the Bolivarian government, the standard rules don't seem to apply.Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Partly agree. However, I will stick to inclusionism here. Bolivarian propaganda is a thing, and I consider it to be notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article, even though I also admit that, because of the topic, it is especially difficult to stick to a neutral POV instead of making it a piece of anti-Bolivarian propaganda. Of course, I also think anti-Bolivarian propaganda is notable, particularly on the Internet, Venezuelan private media and Spanish mainstream media, and that there should be an article about it. Sabbut (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the issue of symmetry between anti-Bolivarian and Bolivarian propaganda. But I don't agree that either are notable or even a thing. You really have to dig to even find those terms in print. These terms do not define actual topics—they are simply used to characterize a political situation. If we had an article for every political epithet (its more than an epithet, but you know what I mean) ever used, wikipedia would need to double its disk storage capacity. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Bolivarian propaganda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting picture captions in the United States section[edit]

Hi folks. I thought the captions for the United States section to be rather partial and misleading. Those 2 grafittis are not against the US as a country, they are against US imperialism, a very specific phenomenon within US Foreign Policy. There is even a Wikipedia article on it: American Imperialism. I added references to American Imperialism and an accurate translation of the slogans. Other than that, great article! 141.211.16.134 (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also changed the wording of the first sentence of the section, to better reflect that the source of the statement.141.211.16.134 (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (1999) Government Cover.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Chávez statue destroyed 2017.webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]