Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 15

Chavez's "unassailable lead" in 2006 opinion polls

To state the findings of opinion polls is not biased. Perhaps the phrase "unassailable lead" is a bit strong to some, but it is enclosed in quotation marks and attributed to the BBC, a reputable organization renowned for its factually accurate reporting. Given the organization's history and reputability, there is no reason for us to believe that the BBC is exaggerating the truth when it says that Chavez's lead in incontestible and clear-cut. If contradictory opinion polls are found, they can be certainly be included; until then, we should assume that the BBC's interpretation of the opinion polls is neutral and factually accurate.

Nor is it redundant to state the findings of the opinion polls, for the opinions and observations of Time are distinct to opinion polls conducted on the ground in Venezuela. Polls are much more neutral and credible than the speculation of news organizations, and, in this case, they serve to vindicate the findings of Time magazine.

-- WGee 19:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Even though I do not like putting opinion on the article, even if that opinion is verifiable, it is evident that most of the added criticism is negative OPINION quoted and slapped in. I would personally just put the facts (ie pre-election poll numbers) and let the reader decide, but what is good for the goose should be good for the gardner.Flanker 21:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

To state the findings of opinion polls is not biased. I sorta disagree with this statement. As they say, one can use statistics to prove anything that's even remotely true. Which polls and stats one chooses to incorporate into a discussion can (and in fact almost always does) arise from bias. To rephrase: the point that HC is -- so far -- probably going to be re-elected is made by the Time reference. Even including that reflects a bit of bias (as it is information of a speculative nature), but doesn't seem out of line as it is a concise and relevant fact. Buttressing it up with another ref, contending that HC's lead is 'unassailable' is superfluous, and for that reason suggests bias by the principle: What is superfluous w/r/t fact has a (non fact-oriented) reason for being included Mateo LeFou 21:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

True that is why I differentiate between facts that can be itnterpreted as positive or negative (I plan to add a whole subsection about public perception with multiple polls and who does the polls), I also question the additions of a few economic indicators that are pretty irrelevant to an encyclopedia, the standard bearers have always been, Unemployment, GDP, inflation and poverty. Ironically all positive. But I will not argue for their removal and not for opinion polls they are facts afterall.Flanker 22:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What is superfluous w/r/t fact has a (non fact-oriented) reason for being included I am not pushing for the inclusion of the BBC report in order to favour Chavez, if that's what you're saying. I'm trying to incorporate some sort of preliminary opinion poll into the section because most readers would rather trust a poll than Time magazine's speculation. Although the BBC is a secondary source that has interpreted the opinion polls, it should be noted that Wikipedia favours secondary sources over primary sources. Further, the BBC's interpretation can be trusted, because, as I've said, it is widely regarded as one of the most neutral and accurate mainstream news organizations in the West. That Chavez is leading the opinion polls is not necessarily favourable to him, either; nor is it opinion. I therefore see no reason why opinion polls should not be mentioned alongside, or even instead of, speculation, even if they are interpreted by secondary sources. -- WGee 02:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The removal of verifiable opinion from the article

I am really, really for it I described in my user page my definition and difference so that Sandy can see that it is not some arbitrary definition ;) Granted what Mateo is doing is modifying the prose so that is neutrally worded as oposed to POV loaded, which is in itself a very positive step. Flanker 21:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I just don't think it adds anything beyond what the Time ref says. Sounds like 'he's going to win, he's going to win, he's really popular. Mateo LeFou 21:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

We can discuss this later, Mateo. Leave the sentence by now and do some more edits in the article. Be Bold, perhaps we will understand better your point with a wider view of how you think the article should look JRSP 22:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can catalog all of the POV prose and we can compare and contrast.Flanker 22:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

These are good ideas; hopefully I'll have some time tomorrow. Mateo LeFou 23:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I just don't think it adds anything beyond what the Time ref says. But I do, and that is where we fundamentally disagree. An opinion poll is a credible first-hand indication of public opinion, whereas a prediction, albiet an informed one, is meaningless in comparison. I understand your concern that we don't need to overemphasize the fact that Chavez has the bulk of the public's support (as indicated by the polls), but I don't think that two sentences on the subject are over-doing it. If you insist, we could remove the Time reference, but I maintain that the BBC reference should stay. -- WGee 03:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't insist. My preference would be that one or the other appear, but not both. As long as you see the area of contention (namely, turning citations into persuasions) I can let this go. Mateo LeFou 05:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are concerned about "turning citations into persuasions", I suggest you analyze the Criticism of Hugo Chavez article rather than muse over this one added sentence of mine. The overwhelmingly negative citations in that article would surely persuade one to dislike Chavez. -- WGee 07:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As per the title of that article, I'd expect the citations to be overwhelmingly negative. Mateo LeFou 14:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

But certainly not the prose accompanying the citations.Flanker 15:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV policy requires that all sides of the debate are represented appropriately. If the citations are overwhelmingly negative, you have a biased article; the criticism must be balanced by praise. Further, the criticism article is an example of Sandy using whichever citations she can find to bolster her stated thesis that Chavez is dictatorial and economically irresponsible. -- WGee 21:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If this article were balanced, the Criticism article wouldn't exist. Remember, it exists at your insistence; as a POV fork insisted upoon by you (all). Please stop referring to "my thesis", unless I have a thesis which is not supported by numerous reliable sources, per Wiki policy. Sandy 21:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've stated numerous times that there is nothing wrong with having a Criticism article. As long as the criticism article includes both negative and favourable sources, and is summarized to an extent in the main article, there is no POV fork. Your referring to the article as a POV fork suggests that you don't know what one is. -- WGee 19:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

My fears about the inclusion of a second source that speculates about HC's chances for re-election have been confirmed; today we have a third poll. Surprise! It falls back into the old oh-yeah-well-this-source-says-something-else pattern. The future likelihood of X,Y, or Z is not even material for an encyclopedia. I now think that *zero references to that stuff is the correct number. Send it to wikinews.

Mateo vs. Hugo, Chapter 1

I'd love to Be Bold but I also don't want to start a revert war. I'd like some people to read these notes and just say "Mateo, you seem pretty trustworthy, go ahead and do these edits". That would be simple and sweet; much better than getting into a donnybrook over every individual suggestion. All comments are appreciated, though. Man, I love wikipedia.

Chavez article notes:

These notes -- I hope -- are in accord with my Principles for Editing Controversial Topics, which you can read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mateo_LeFou

In general, I appreciate your open recognition of your pro-Chávez bias. We could use more of that around here, and it hopefully indicates that you are aware of your own bias and will try to edit based on consensus: a practice that ceased here after WGee's unilateral revert.

However, I do take difference with one aspect of your principles. The standards for inline citations have radically changed of recent, and specifically with respect to BLPs. With respect to BLPs, you might have to get used to seeing more inline cites than in other articles. This is the trend on Wiki, and strictly enforced in BLPs.

Also, "say it once, say it clean" needs to be adapted to the reality of Chávez. He is/this is one of the most controversial topics of the day, and there are numerous issues which are anything but simple. It may take you some time to get up on all of these issues, and consensual editing via talk page discussion is much appreciated. The smallest of items — like the stupid claim (that we still have to deal with) that Chávez is Pres 53 — are more complex than they seem. To fix that US-centric claim of 53 Pres, introduced by an editor from India who had never been to Venezuela and doesn't speak Spanish, requires work across numerous articles, and broad consensus. That's just one small example of some of the problems, resulting in "overciting". Sandy 17:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"what he terms anti-imperialism" I would omit 'what he terms'. The fact that this is Chavez's view is established by the use of "his vision of" earlier in this sentence.

Agree. Sandy 17:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I actually removed that phrase before, but another editor insisted that it remain. -- WGee 20:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"orchestrating a failed 1992 coup d'état" I would change to 'the unsucessful coup d'etat' largely for readability. If people need the year they can find it. Also, doublecheck that he "orchestrated" it rather than just "participated in" it.

The "orchestrated" word came about because of some very old discussion about the word that was there in earlier (FA) versions, which was "led". One editor, I guess, claimed that there were several leaders, so the article couldn't say Chavez "led". But, he was *the* leader. That is the history behind that text, if you can find a way to address it, please suggest. I don't agree with dropping the date for the simple reason that, not surprisingly, many English-speaking readers are confused about which coup is which, not realizing there are many that relate to Chávez. Leaving in one date doesn't overwhelm the reader. Sandy 17:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

To say that Chavez merely "participated in" the coup would be a gross understatement of his role. I think it's safe to say that Chavez "orchestrated" the coup, considering the sources within the article that attest to that. -- WGee 20:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"on promises of aiding Venezuela's poor majority" I would change to "by promising to aid Venezuela's poor majority", and only if it's widely-accepted that this was the decisive factor in his being elected. "On promises of aiding" is slightly clumsy.

Agree. Sandy 17:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. "On the promises of aiding Venezuela's poor majority" is not only gramatically correct, but it is more inticing and has a different meaning than "by promising to aid Venezuela's poor majority". -- WGee 20:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"Chávez's far-reaching reforms have evoked exceptional controversy in Venezuela and abroad, receiving both criticism and praise. Venezuelans are split between those who say he has empowered the poor and stimulated economic growth, and those who say he is autocratic and has mismanaged the economy. Some foreign governments view Chávez as a threat to global oil prices and regional stability, while others welcome his bilateral trade and reciprocal aid agreements." This is an excellent graf, even if Sandy wrote it. ;) The controversial aspects of Chavez's programs are introduced without editorializing; the best arguments of both sides are summarized with clarity and efficiency.

Just for the record, I wrote that. -- WGee 20:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Cute :) What is there is fine.

Also in the lead, and mentioned above: we need to deal with 53. There is no such construct in Venezuela, and it's POV, US-centric, original research, and poorly-sourced. We have been discussing this problem on List of Presidents of Venezuela, where fixing it will require a big effort. I suggest we switch it to something along the lines of "Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías (IPA: ['uɰo rafa'el 'tʃaβes 'fɾias]) (born July 28, 1954) has been the President of Venezuela since 1999", or something like that to get away from the dicey 53 number. But even that would be a controversial change, since some argue that he hasn't been "uninterrrupted" president since 1999 (Carmona - coup), so figuring out how to word the first sentence is not easy.

Next, I see you jumped straight into minor modifications to the top-half text, and I disagree with any minor modifications there. Almost everything there has a daughter article, there has been no use of WP:SS in this article (User:Saravask, the author who brought the article to FA status, had cut the article to 1/2 or 1/3 of what is here before he gave up on working in this highly-charged environment, but WGee subsequently reverted the entire article), and this article vastly exceeds recommendations on WP:SIZE. The overall article size is 108KB, which is not a problem considering the number of references, but the prose size is a whopping 65KB. It makes no sense at all to have daughter articles which are complete copies of the main article, with no use of Summary Style, in an overly verbose article, which devotes pages of text to issues that are 5 to 10 years old, and can easily be summarized. I suggest that you not start making piecemeal, small edits to any of the top of the article, and consider instead that the entire thing needs to be trimmed. I will save them the trouble of posting by telling you that WGee, Flanker, JRSP, (struck, see below) and 172 disagree, in spite of Wiki guidelines. They like the pro-Chávez text that is there, and refuse to cut any of it to daughter articles, which say the same thing. If you want it FA again — and I agree that is attainable — you will have to pay attention to Summary Style and prose size. The hardest things to fix for attaining featured status are inline citations and poor prose, and this article suffers from neither. If the POV, article size, and stability can be addressed (doable via consensus), I see no reason this article can't reattain FA. Ooops, adding on a point I forget about FA. All of the Chavez articles have a number of images with dubious, invalid, or no Fair Use claims (images taken from BBC, AP, and Reuters by 172), and those will definitely be an obstacle to attaining FA status. The images taken from BBC, AP and Reuters are not Fair Use, and should be removed and deleted. Sandy 17:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

""Bolivarianism," inspired by the Pan-Americanist philosophies of 19th-century Venezuelan revolutionary" I would change to "'Bolivarianism,' named after the 19th-century Venezuelan revolutionary..." at the unfortunate cost of a link to "Pan-Americanist", for basic readability. I would also cut "the influence of Peruvian dictator Juan Velasco, and the teachings of various socialist and communist leaders" to keep it concise.

Nope. The disagreement there is that he chooses to call it Bolivarianism, but his policies have nothing to do with Bolivar. A number of editors in the past have objected to this, and it's still an issue. Calling it Bolivarianism is a misnomer, and that needs to be addressed. Sandy 17:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The original sentence about "Bolivarianism" utilizes a fine standard of English and is perfectly readible. It is also imperative that we tell the reader what Chavez called his ideology, and what he was inspired by. To me, Bolivar's pan-Americanism is analogous to Chavez's advocacy of Latin American economic integration; his struggle for the independence of South America is analogous to Chavez's nationalism, which aims to shield Venezuela from the West's "economic imperialism". Further, if you omit the fact that Chavez was inspired by communists, socialists, and Juan Velasco, the reader is left with the impression that Chavez's Bolivarianism is solely inspired by Bolivar, which is false. Evidently, excessive summarizing can result in misinformation. -- WGee 20:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The baseball and poetry stuff is interesting, but disrupts the flow. I'd rearrage, putting it in a separate graf preceding the one it's presently in. Once we open the Bolivarian can of worms, the article should focus on political theory and activity. For "narrative" reasons.

See above. Tons of stuff like this can be chopped, since it's already in daughter articles. Refer to WP:SS. However, you should know, again, the history of the article. In the original FAC, several reviewers complained that the article didn't give enough personal history of Chavez, so that kind of content was left in. You might want to review the FAC and the FAR, before making radical changes, as the same issues tend to keep cropping up. Sandy 17:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedic article does not necessarily follow the "narritive" framework. The paragraph's topic is Chavez's college years; the contents of the paragraph follow suit. Considering how little personal info there is about Chavez (relatively speaking), I don't think we should take any away. -- WGee 20:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"he was first acknowledged by his peers for his fiery lecturing style" I would change to "where his fiery lecturing style made an impact" or something like that. "Acknowledged by his peers" has some pro-Chavez bias (still with me, Sandy?), indicating (truly or falsely) that he started acquiring accolades at this time.

I'm with you, but I'm trying to remember how that text came about, who wanted it, what the objection was. It is back in the Fall 2005 talk history. Someone (don't know who - I wasn't involved then) made quite a deal about the fact that his very unusual speaking style needed to be addressed, and I tend to agree. Not sure on the best wording there, though. He certainly has a very unusual and crude way of speaking, which I have never encountered in any world leader. Sandy 17:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that the current wording is fine. We are stating a fact: that Chavez was acknowledged by his peers for his fiery lecturing style. I do not see any bias in that statement, especially considering that most analysts today, whether leftist or rightist, acknowledge Chavez's fiery populist rheotoric. We should not, in my opinion, omit or revise a fact merely because it can be skewed in Chavez's favour. -- WGee 20:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

btw, my asides to Sandy are all in good fun. I hope we can collaborate and fix this incredibly-funky article. If you and I can bury the hatchet, this will be FA again; that's what I want!

:-) You are obviously new to this article :-) We had a very nice, very consensual editing history on the article, until WGee's massive, unconsensual revert with no prior talk page discussion, as his first edit to the article. That is pretty much the definition of ownership. At the time, some of us mistakenly assumed that another editor who supported his revert was an admin of some standing on Wiki, and only discovered much later that was wrong. I regret not having opposed the revert, as it introduced a precedent of us against them bullying into the editing of these articles. Since his revert resulted in a very unbalanced pro-Chávez article, he gained some friends while completely chasing off all the other Venezuelan editors, and ever since, it's been editing by bullying. I look forward to returning to encyclopedic, Wiki, and FA standards, consensual editing, and talk page discussion. Sandy 17:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop accusing me of exerting ownership over this article; it is become very annoying. Only you expressed disapproval of my revert, and you did not even attempt to restore the previous version. You persistently write these tirades, lambasting me for disrupting your trend of "consensual editing", even though my edits were supported by several editors. You also seem to be forgetting that I reverted to the version that appeared on the main page; do you maintain that that version was systematically pro-Chavez? As for ownership: For months now you've been constantly editing this article (you are the second most prolific contributor to it, in fact), inserting nothing but negative material about Chavez. Thus, for you to accuse Flanker and I of "owning" this article is ironic. -- WGee 20:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Only you expressed disapproval of my revert, Just to refresh your memory, which has a way of playing tricks:

Bold editors

Consensus

As you can see, I was the swing vote. I was wrong: it took us far more work to restore your incompleted job than it would have to work with the more updated and balanced version. Not only is a massive revert with no prior talk page discussion rude and disruptive, it also chased off a lot of good faith editors who had put a lot of work into the article. And that's without mentioning your comment that you were "weary of Venezuelan involvement". Sandy 21:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You also seem to be forgetting that I reverted to the version that appeared on the main page; do you maintain that that version was systematically pro-Chavez? Yes. The FARC supported that, and in fact, Sarvask himself even questioned that. Sandy 21:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"unusually radical critique of Venezuelan government and society" radical is by definition unusual. Pick one.

It is unusually (highly) radical, but I don't care which one you pick. Again, I believe the article needs much more than sporadic reductions of words here and there. Sandy 17:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"ive army units under Chávez's command barreled into urban Caracas" Barreled is loaded, and is also spelled wrong. I'd say "moved into urban Caracas"

I've noticed wording like that throughout (there is an "enraged" somewhere), but I've guessed (perhaps wrongly) that some of that wording came from the book references that Saravask used in developing most of that text. Almost all of the top-half of the text was written by Saravask, and he heavily used a couple of books I've never read. For that reason, several of us have been hesitant to change his wording. Now, on a personal level, having faced down those very tanks as they absolutely DID barrel into Caracas, I would say the word is quite correct, but that's just a reflection of personal trauma :-)) Anyway, the point is, I'm almost certain that most of Saravask's word choices came from published work, and it's unfortunate that the inline citation standards were lower then, so we can't easily go back to the original sources. Sandy 17:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"Barreled" is correct according to Webster's Dictionary and the American Heritage Dictionary. The act of violently capturing a city is negative in and of itself, so I don't think that any simplification of language will help avoid this negative connotation. If anything, the word "move" is much too vague, and will harm the quality of the prose. -- WGee 20:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The graf beginning "Chávez held the loyalty of less than 10%" is pretty problematic. "Plotters" is somewhat loaded. Relatively unversed, I'd hesitate to rewrite this, but it would probably say "Though civilian aid enabled the rebel forces to take control of Valencia, Maracaibo, and Maracay, Caracas remained unattainable. This was largely due to weak support in the Venezuelan military, and to the failed attempt to broadcast prerecorded tapes encouraging a general call for a mass civilian uprising against Perez." With one citation.

Ditto to my commentary above about the book sources used by Saravask. Seriously, if you're going to be highly involved in the article, you might want to go back to the talk page archives, I'd guess around July - December 2005, and understand the sources used. Although the text does not have inline cites, I do believe it relies heavily on wording from published reliable sources. 17:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"Chavez, alarmed..." is another excellent graf.

Yes, that is like the "enraged" example, but again, I believe it is based on a reliable source. Talk page review would be helpful, as there was consensual, productive editing in bringing the article to FA status, and almost every line like that is discussed, with sources, in the talk page history. (too long, posting first half of response, sure hope I don't have an edit conflict). Sandy 17:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"Chávez went on to win the Carter Center-endorsed 1998 presidential election on December 6, 1998 with 56% of the vote." Hm... there's something defensive about incorporating the Carter Center endorsement, phrased this way. I'd write something like "Chavez won the 1998 election blahblahblah. Though there were some allegations of election fraud the results were endorsed by the Carter Center." Same facts, different presentation.

Even though there is significant criticism of Carter's role in bringing Chavez to power and keeping him there, and numerous and credible allegations of fraud and rigging of the system (which is not well covered in this article, and is a source of bias), some editors want the role of Carter emphasized. There were not "some" allegations: there are numerous, credible allegations. Some refuse to acknowledge that, so the text grows with references. A consensual approach to topics like this could result in trimmed text. There are massive, numerous, credible allegations of fraud and rigging of the system (not 98, but late), reported in numerous reliable sources. Obviously we won't be using wording like that in the text, but saying "some allegations" doesn't reflect the reality. Things like this should be much simplified via talk page discussion, rather than introduction of numerous sources to refute POV. The Madsen claim falls into the same category. Sandy 17:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Man, this article is long. It's worth it, though! Press on!

No, it's so long that it's not readable. Last time I printed it, it was 22 pages. It's probably 25 now. It exceeds all Wiki guidelines, and doesn't effectively employ Summary Style. Not surprisingly, it is very pleasing to pro-Chávez editors, which gives an indication of the bias :-) Sandy 17:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This in an encyclopedia, not a storybook. Information in encyclopedias is segregated into sections and sub-sections so that readers aren't overwhelmed by the usually massive text. Similarly, most amateur researchers will only view the sections that provoke their interest; they won't read the article beginning-to-end. In an encyclopedia, comprehensiveness and factual accuracy are of the essence. Encyclopædia Britannica and most other encyclopedias have realized that, which is why they don't adhere to arbitrary digital size limits. Plus, when you began summarizing text, I noticed an immediate degredation in prose quality and fluidity, as well as the loss of vital pieces of information. -- WGee 20:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

1999: Economic Crisis "set his eyes upon" change to "eyed"? "This civilian-military program was launched as "Plan Bolivar 2000," whose scope included road building..." change to "which included road building..." Weird use of "whose" has always been a pet peeve of mine, sorry.

Don't work on small wording changes here: the entire thing is ancient history, and is summarized in daughter articles. Chop half of it. Sandy 17:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"The plan faltered at the end of 2001 with accusations and revelations of corruption by military officers, including both military officers who later rebelled against the president in April 2002 and officers linked to the president" change to ""The plan faltered at the end of 2001 amid revelations of corruption by military officers" for concision. If corruption was revealed, 'accusations' is unnecessary. The rest is run-on-ish.

Agree. -- WGee 20:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"in the hopes of garnering elevated oil prices" change to "in the hopes of elevating oil prices"

Agree. -- WGee 20:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"These agreements had allowed the corporations to pay in taxes as little as 1% of the tens of billions of dollars in revenues they were earning from the Venezuelan oil they were extracting..." change to "These agreements provided substantial tax benefits to the oil companies." The inclusion of these figures reflects some pro-Chavez bias.

Disagree. Here's my version: "These agreements allowed the oil companies to pay as little as 1% of their revenues as taxes." "substantial tax benefits" is too vague. -- WGee 20:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"by mid-1999, Chávez was incensed by his administration's setbacks in enacting" change to "by mid-1999, Chávez was incensed by setbacks to his administration's enacting"

"The constitutional referendum passed with a CNE-audited 72% "yes" vote" Again, defensive inclusion of CNE.

Considering the precarious political climate of Venezuela, with all these accusations of vote-rigging and such, it is important to note that the referendum was audited. -- WGee 20:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The rest of the new constitution stuff is pretty clean; the mudslide graf at the end is funky. It has some anti-Chavez bias ("claimed the lives of an estimated 30,000 people. Critics claim Chávez was distracted by the referendum") and pro-Chavez bias ("Chávez personally led the relief effort afterwards"). These things are not false; but their incluson here strikes me as an attempt to exploit a tragedy to ennoble/degrade Chavez.

Nope, new constitution is very (almost intentionally) obscure, and an area of POV. Controversy isn't covered well. On the mudslides, Flanker wanted to make some point I was never able to understand, so I gave up. Sandy 17:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

When Sandy persistently inserts negative material, she should expect nothing esle than rebuttals of somekind to follow; otherwise, neutrality cannot be achieved. Of course, we could remove the supporters/critics' assertions altogether, but Sandy unconditionally objects to the removal of criticism. -- WGee 20:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

2000-2001 Relection: See, here is where it makes sense to introduce the Carter Center's supervision/review of the election results. They are an important piece of the puzzle at this juncture.

Dang, I need some sleep...more later.Mateo LeFou 06:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with most but would note this since I wrote it: It has some anti-Chavez bias ("claimed the lives of an estimated 30,000 people. Critics claim Chávez was distracted by the referendum") and pro-Chavez bias ("Chávez personally led the relief effort afterwards"). These things are not false; but their incluson here strikes me as an attempt to exploit a tragedy to ennoble/degrade Chavez. Welcome to Venezuelan politics :D althoght the former is typical opposition accusation without substantiation and the latter is far more factual.Flanker 15:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the world according to Flanker. He "owns" the facts, and only his version is fact; hence, we never edit by consensus, because he is the owner of the truth. Sandy 17:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You always assume that Flanker is not editing by consensus; meanwhile, you are the only person who disagrees with his edits. Thus, the opinion is in his favour. You can argue ad hominem that everyone who disagrees with you is a chavista who owns the article, but it will get you nowhere. -- WGee 20:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sandy I think you and Flanker need to take your issues to mediation, and basically not respond to or mention each other at all until that is done. Comments like this just clutter up an already-huge page.Mateo LeFou 18:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mateo, perhaps you meant to say, "Sandy and Flanker, I think ... " The above is a perfect example of the problems with these articles. What Flanker calls "typical opposition accusation without substantiation" is well-referenced to reliable sources, which he characterizes by giving us his "opinon". What he calls "fact" is always his own opinion or one-sided, biased Chávez content. He often says that what Chavez says is "fact", while what reliable sources say is opinion. If you're going to "take sides" on that issue this early on, you don't have a very good chance of convincing other editors to NPOV this article by recognizing bias, using reliable sources, and developing consensus via talk page discussion. Sandy 19:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet again, you're just trashing Flanker. It so happens I agree on this point: saying HC "personally led the relief effort" exhibits more bias than saying "Critics claim Chávez was distracted". You didn't ask about this, though; you just unloaded another barrage at Flanker's credibility. I suggest you do that sort of thing elsewhere.Mateo LeFou 20:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Next, for Mateo, to the second problem with the article (after the verbosity and size, and failure to use Summary Style). You should be aware of how the "Criticism" article came to be (you might want to read the Criticism AfD). It was originally created because this article was too long, and all sections were going to be summarized to Summary Style. After I summarized Criticism, summary was halted. WGee changed his mind after the negative content was removed, which in effect, created a POV fork, with one little section of negative content, and a massively oversized article with a pro-Chavez bias. There should be no criticism section: for the article to be balanced, all sides of the story should be presented throughout, in context, preserving flow and balance. There is no reason for a separate Criticism section, relegated to a small section at the bottom of the article. It is only there because editing by bullying, rather than consensus, relegated anything negative about Chavez to a secondary place in the article. All sides of the story should be woven into the text, throughout. The article needs structural changes, not minute adjustments to wording. If your intent is to fine tune wording, leaving a very unbalanced article, the article will remain POV. You should know that we were within days of removing the POV tag until the Summary Style work halted. Sandy 17:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The second you destroy the Criticism section and weave the criticism throughout the entire article is the second that the prose will rapidly deteriorate, as desribed here: [1]. Either remove critics' and supporters' claims enitrely to make the article balanced, or include both critics' and supporters' claims. Negative material with the absence of positive material is inherently POV. -- WGee 20:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not even logical. You say you wrote:

Chávez's far-reaching reforms have evoked exceptional controversy in Venezuela and abroad, receiving both criticism and praise. Venezuelans are split between those who say he has empowered the poor and stimulated economic growth, and those who say he is autocratic and has mismanaged the economy. Some foreign governments view Chávez as a threat to global oil prices and regional stability, while others welcome his bilateral trade and reciprocal aid agreements.

That presents both sides equally, interwoven, balanced, just as the entire article should be written. Now you are contradicting yourself, saying the body of the article should not follow the example in the lead, of presenting balance. This is exactly how the entire article should be written, rather than exorcising any content not pro-Chavez to a small section at the bottom. The mistake you (all) make is the label "criticism", which is your label. To you, anything that is not pro-Chavez is relegated to "criticism", when it is nothing more than a balanced view, exactly as presented in the lead. As you say below, the article should summarize anti- and pro-, just as Bush does. We haven't done that here, because you (all) won't allow it, and relegate any "anti" to "criticism", creating a POV fork and an unbalanced article. Sandy 21:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's perfectly logical. I generalized the criticism and praise in the lead, and would also like the criticism and praise generalized in the Criticism section, to avoid the ridiculous tit-for-tat assertions that will inevitably destroy the main prose. And, I emphasize the fact that I have generalized the difference of opinion, which is necessary if we want to prevent this article from becoming the Wiki-debate zone. You, meanwhile, have inserted multitudes of overly specific negative reports, and without balancing them with favourable reports.

Evidently, I am perfectly capable of summarizing the controversy surrounding Chavez, but I would like the controversy to be discussed in a seperate section for the reasons stated above. And, if I am to do so, I will need you to stop adding any more negative reports or statistics to this article.

--WGee 21:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to include criticism of some sort, follow the lead of the George W. Bush article. In it, there is a section entitled "Criticism and public perception", which outlines general views of him amongst the U.S. public and foreign citizens and governments. It does not include a plethora of highly controversial assertions from publications and academics, nor does it include ultra-specific economic statistics or human rights reports and try to attribute them directly to George Bush. It merely summarizes general anti- and pro-Bush sentiment and avoids getting into specific theses. -- WGee 20:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Presidency: section & daughter article

Some material of the Presidency section could be moved to the daughter article Presidency of Hugo Chávez. The daughter article is intended to be the place for details while the main article section should summarize that article. However, present situation is that the 2006 subsec is present in the main article but not in the daughter. We need to trim the article it is already 100Kb+ JRSP 17:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Light at the end of the tunnel. Let me strike one of my comments (above). For months, the owners have refused to summarize the article. Sandy 17:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:size is no longer an issue, after reading the GA candidacy criteria it states that size could be of any length, I have come to the conclusion that some articles are excempt KB restrictions this being one of them. Things should be removed if it is deemed not as relevant or important however. The worst period of this article was when it was close 50 KB we had to literally summarize paragraphs into 3 words.Flanker 18:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Another complete misread of policy and guidelines. What that refers to is that GA used to apply only to "short" articles, and now it allows "longer" articles. Size and Summary Style guidelines still apply to all articles. There have never been summaries into 3 words: hyperbole and exaggeration aren't helpful. And that's without mentioning the controversy surrounding GA right now, and the extreme flux in defining juts what it is. Sandy 18:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't mean a short summary. Just avoid too many details. The 2006 section, unstable by definition until 1/1/07, would be better edited in Presidency of Hugo Chávez. But we cannot leave just a small summary as the more interesting part of the bio is HC as President of Venezuela JRSP 19:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Nice. We're actually rolling back the reference wars instead of escalating 'em. Let's do it again. Mateo LeFou 13:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't realized there were so many daughter articles, I think we can yank section 4 (Presidency) and restructure or remove 5 (Impact of presidency). I propose new, concise section text beginning with:

"The Chavez presidency has been one of the most event- and controversy-filled periods of Venezuelan history. A new constitution has been approved; a coup and couter-coup have both succeeded, resulting the shortest presidency (Carmona's) of Venezuela's history; a constitutional recall has failed; and numerous far-reaching economic programs (the "Bolivarian Missions") have been initiated. While the long-term results of these cannot be known yet, they clearly represent a dramatically different strategy than that of previous administrations. Chavez has also been prominent on the world stage, especially as an influential personality and outspoken critic of neoliberal globalization."

There obviously needs to be more -- as per JRSP the presidency is the definitive section here -- but I believe this is appropriate summary style. I'm going for a sorta wishy-washy solution: eliminating the need for copious references by saying only what is obvious, e.g. Chavez's economic programs are arguably great, arguably awful, but definitely "far-reaching". etc.

If you think I'm on the right track, I can do a similar redux of most the subsections that have spawned daughter articles and put the drafts in here. Chavez and the media is almost concise enough, but the third graf in that section is pretty off-topic and unnecessary. In fact I'm taking that graf out now Mateo LeFou 14:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're on the right in terms of where we need to reduce, but I don't think your wording is on the right track at all, and you've cut too deep. Sorry, but can you give us an idea of how much of Venezuela's history and politics — current and past — you know? For example, where does "The Chavez presidency has been one of the most event- and controversy-filled periods of Venezuelan history" come from? I also feel that the prose you are proposing is a downgrade from what is there now. You are "going for wishy-washy", and that doesn't do justice to the FA quality prose that exists in the current version. One of the reasons I supported the revert was that it returned us to superior prose, so I'm not anxious to see the prose deteriorate into wishy-washy. There are so many problems with your proposed wording that, rather then analyze them, I suggest that you 1) first get concurrence from the editors here who have long opposed shortening the article, and then 2) leave that work to editors who understand the history and issues well. Your good faith attempt is appreciated, but I don't yet see that we have consensus to summarize the article, as WGee, 172 and Flanker have always disagreed.

I haven't yet looked at what you took out of Media, but I'm not convinced yet that you know the issues in Venezuela well enough to be deleting material, particularly before many involved editors here have weighed in. Several of the proposed wording changes you listed (above) indicated some lack of understanding of the complexity of the issues. Slowing down would be a good idea. Sandy 15:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

All good points. Thank you, Sandy. I intend only to bring in the opinion of a relative "outsider" and acknowledge that I'm not well-versed in Venezuela's history. For this reason, I'll mostly be putting thoughts into the talk page and leaving the actual article alone.

Re: my edit of "Media". Given the section title, the material about Chavez vs. the established media organization is perfect. Likewise his television show, and the info about TeleSUR. The section I redacted, though, said basically 1) Venezuela didn't get a lot of press in the wake of 9/11; 2) Castro wields more influence than Bush on Venezuela.

1) is true, but nobody got much ink in the wake of 9/11 except the US. 2) is also true, but the fact that Chavez is tight with Castro has numerous non-media-related causes, doesn't it? Ideological similarity, a common enemy, etc. The Cuba-Chavez connection is documented sufficiently in other places. There was also some loaded language ("deterioration","Bush's mighty US").

Several of the proposed wording changes you listed (above) indicated some lack of understanding of the complexity of the issues. Slowing down would be a good idea. Again, I'm not actually doing much editing. A couple of the proposed wording changes were implemented by other editors -- that's fine with me. As per WP:BOLD I feel it's my prerogative to make the occasional edit for germane-ness and conciseness, while leaving the heavy factual lifting to others. Mateo LeFou 16:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

2006

Boy do I hate the lead on this. The 12 year term-limit question isn't relevant to 2006. Now that we got opinion-poll cruft out of there, my text would be: "Chavez is campaigning for re-election in December, and has also announced a Venezuelan bid to win a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council..." Subsequent text implies that all opposition to the Venezualan bid comes from Washingtonian puppetry; this is biased. Subsequent subsequent text implies that all support is bought with gifts or otherwise trumped-up. Guys! There's gambling going on in this casino! I propose we find another significant event of '06 to mention in order to pad out this section, or remove it entirely. After the security council bid fails or succeeds, we can summarize a couple of opinions about why it went that way. Mateo LeFou 15:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that is it much more appropriate to write about events in retrospect, as most encyclopedias do, rather than to write about them as they are first reported (or merely speculated upon) by news agencies. I already warned Sandy about the 2006 section's becoming a news-wire.

Your first example of bias, in my opinion, is far-fetched. It is widely known, virtually a given, that the United States is stridently against Venezuela's admission to the Security Council. And considering the hegemony of the United States in international affairs (particularly in the UN), it's quite reasonable to state its position regarding Venezuela's UN bid. Your second example of bias is more reasonable. Although it's no secret that Chavez uses Venezuela's wealth to his political advantage (not unlike most leaders of wealthy countries), he clearly has political allies other than those nations that he entices with promises of oil. -- WGee 04:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Collection of public opinion polls

Will add here as many as I can find, all updated(check detailed poll results in the lower part):

• Datanalisis (oposition) 59% voter intention[2]

Institute for Data Analysis (don't know) gives him 60% excellent and good and 80% if you add average to good approval rating [3]

• Hinterlaces (oposition) 55% voter intention [4]
• CECA (oposition) 42.6% voter intention similar for rejection [5]
• Consultores 21 (oposition) 51.5% voter intention[6]

The only big name oposition pollsters I am missing is Datos and Alejandro and Sejias. Will add more as I find them.Flanker 03:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• "Cuando observamos la confianza que tiene la población verificamos que 64% dice que la situación económica es positiva, que 78% señala que su condición personal ha mejorado y que 73% cree que el año que viene será mejor, esto hace que explote el consumo", explica Luis Vicente León, director de Datanálisis." 64% say the economic situation is positive, 78% say it is better than before and 73% believe next year it will be better. [7]Flanker 05:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

The following comment was origanally posted on Talk:Israel-Venezuela relations:

Preferably, I would like to see all biased secondary sources removed from the all of these Hugo Chavez–related articles, unless they are used to relay statistics or quotations from a primary source. Academic publications (such as International Affairs by the Chatham House ) and similarly reputable sources are the only things that should be cited. Academic essays are peer reviewed; have reasonable, rational criticisms; and do not resort to sensational language to convey their theses. Further, academic essays are selected for publication usually because they are deemed to be vitally important to their fields; thus, they tend analyze the broad picture and ignore superfluous details and statistics. Other sources are acceptable as well, as long as they are not overtly biased.

So, in essence, I would like to see only non-biased sources in these articles. That would not mean an absence of criticism, however, because more or less neutral sources (e.g., Amnesty and the Chatham House) do discuss criticisms. The difference is that these neutral sources focus on deep, broad and intriguing criticisms, rather than on sensationally-phrased accusations regarding specific news events. If, however, it is absolutely necessary to refer to a biased news agency (like The Economst, for example) in order to gain the critics' POV on a particular event, make sure that their assertion is recapitulated in encyclopedic language.

-- WGee 04:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Again I agree, it is not about criticism it is about forcing that criticism on the article, for example on Israel-Ven they quote the most convinient stuff in order to introduce POV. Prime example is the source about people comparing Chavez with Nasarrallah, there are plenty of positve quotes (I am opposed to them as well on principle of NPOV) in that article but whoever wrote it chose the most inflamatory in order to introduce POV, it is a long and ardous battle trying to fight opinion criticism (he is this, that etc) as opposed to factual criticism (crime rates have increased X ammount). Have a look at my user page for something I am trying to change. Flanker 17:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This text does not add much content

From article:

After the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11 2001, and with preparations for war in the U.S., Latin America could not compete for international media coverage. Moises Naim, a former Venezuelan Minister of Trade and Industry and editor of Foreign Policy magazine, argued in early 2003 that the world could no longer afford to ignore Venezuela's deterioration. He stated that Washington had mattered little in the Venezuelan crisis, and that "Fidel Castro's Cuba ... (had) been far more influential in Caracas than George W. Bush's mighty US", with sustained and effective attention towards its goal of keeping Chávez in power.

This text does not add much to the main article, perhaps it could be moved to a daughter article JRSP 03:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree and already proposed a similar edit Mateo LeFou 15:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see that I did in fact make the edit, it was reverted by sandy who called it "spuriously deleted". Now it's back: "refrain from deletions of well-sourced material in order to insert POV". In my opinion the text isn't particularly unfavorable to HC, so it isn't really a POV issue. I support removal because it's off-topic.

I agree the text is really not that unfavorable and its inclusion dubious, I just won't opine one way or another for that reason but under encyclopedic standards it really sticks out like a sore thumb. Flanker 17:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I will be glad to expand it to make the relevance more clear to those who don't seem to get it, but then you'll complain about overkill. Your choice. I personally think it is the single most relevant appraisal of what was going on in the international media wrt Chavez until about 2004, because the international media simply was not paying any attention to what was happening in Venezuela. This article (or the Media article, can't remember which) previously had unfounded and unsourced allegations of anti-Chavez bias in the international media during the early 2000 years. The media wasn't paying attention, except for the rare WSJ article, the NYT pro-Chavez reports from the Juan Forero, and more regular reporting from the BBC. If you want me to expand the content to make the relevance more clear, I can do that, but I think Naim's appraisal is the most accurate description of what was happening in the international media as Chavez consolidated power. Sandy 17:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes more is less instead of writing something neutral like "In the international arena some argue that Venezuela was not given much attention until year X" Instead of introducing a lengthy quote arguing "consolidation of power" That is the problem Sandy you are trying to introduce POV when a Neutral sentence would make it but a verbose statement would not, so you quote something no matter how irrelevant it is to the matter at hand. (ie media matters vs consolidation of power)Flanker 17:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Not so. As you know, I quote text verbatim, because if I don't, you (all) often delete it, claiming "that's not what the source says". If I simply paraphrase to one sentence, it's not allowed here. Please stop violating WP:AGF, and accusing me of inserting POV. I have repeatedly told all of you I am looking forward to a return to consensual editing that we enjoyed before the revert, using simpler summaries of basic concepts. Until you allow that summarization, I am forced to stick to exact and lengthy quotes. Prime example: I introduced one or two simply summary sentences about Adan Chavez, which was challenged in the Criticism article. It was challenged over and over and over, resulting in expansion to a full section in order to demonstrate what I originally said in one or two sentences. The lengthy sections are a result of the non-consensual editing practice here, and the refusal to allow any content not favorable to pro-Chavez POV. Sandy 17:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Proof by verbosity ? JRSP 18:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Produce an example where you (all) have worked together to generate balanced concise summarized text, incorporating all points of view. Few of you have made attempts to adjust the sections you remove: you just remove them. I can produce plenty of examples where I've worked with all of you to incorporate all POVs (who had to find and include the Petkoff source, for example?). Until you all want to work consensually, the articles are likely to remain bogged in verbosity. Sandy 18:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You do not have to quote all of your sources verbatim, Sandy; that is a very unencyclopedic way of presenting information. Quote a word or two if neccesary, but it is usually not necessary to to quote multiple sentences. We will not remove negative material merely because it is not quoted verbatim; but we will remove negative material if it is not entirely supported by any sources. It is very possible to accurately recapitulate the assertions of sources; in fact, that is what most editors do. -- WGee 21:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I would love to see if Sandy worked with or is really wanting to work with praise [8] There are literally tons of quotes like: "Chavez isn't going anywhere because he helps the poor," said Jesus del Carmen Vivas, 45, struggling with a bulging food bag. "When have we ever had a president who did anything for us?"" That could be added but should not, that is what you mostly add Sandy, but on the negative side. Meanwhile Economic statistics get a micro sentence or two. Flanker 03:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sandy's attempt to "balance" the article has actually caused it to become highly unblanced. As you point out, Flanker, negative quotes are excessive, procured mostly from Western sources, and are disproportionate considering the abundance of domestic support for Chavez, as both polls and secondary sources indicate. And despite her claims, Sandy makes no attempt to balance the criticism she inserts, on at least one occassion saying that no favourable assertions even exist. Sandy's insistence to edit only from the anti-Chavez POV is extremely harmful to the article. -- WGee 05:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that, for all the complaints, there have been none to negligible attempts by any one of you to insert any reliably-sourced text to provide what you call balance. (Flanker has inserted varying versions of primary sources, original research, or material not sourced to reliable sources several times, but I can't recall additions made by your or JRSP. I could be wrong.) I suspect that you may be frustrated because the content may not exist. I suggest that you stop placing the burden on me to invent text out of thin air, especially considering I was the one who had trimmed, deleted, and summarized all the criticism before you all changed your minds about Summary Style. There is a clear solution to this impasse, which you all refuse to allow. Trim and merge both articles, employing Summary Style, and summarizing text away from exact quotes, which you all have forced me to use. The good thing is, everything is scrupulously sourced, so summarizing should not be difficult. Whenever you all want to do the work, I'm willing. I've asked Zleitzen if he would be willing to help, thinking you all might trust him, but interestingly, there were no complaints about my editing when I had made the good faith effort to reduce Criticism to three short paragraphs. I recall a talk page section where you, WGee, had indicated that my short summaries were fine, before 172 popped in to proclaim no more summaries, the article was just right. Sandy 06:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have just re-read the referenced article, and it contains quite a bit of useful analysis, albeit not entirely impartial. It does not, however, analyze Chavez and the media. Not at all. The "compete for attention line" in context, reads:

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001, Latin America all but disappeared from the map of top US policymakers. Without Islamic terrorists and nuclear capabilities, the region could not compete for attention.

...making it clear that it is the attention of the policymakers, not the media, that is referred to.

Washington's authority was further curtailed by its hesitant and ambiguous reaction to the attempted coup, a reaction denounced by Democrats in the US Congress.

This is one of several excellent points in the article, which has as its true subject not Chavez and the Media but (essentially) few episodes better illustrate the limits of US power than the outmanoeuvring of Uncle Sam by Fidel in a country that is one of the largest suppliers of oil to the US.

In my opinion a summary of this article would be a great lead for "Hugo Chávez presidency" in the page United_States-Venezuela_relations. Except that the lead paragraph there is already relatively good.

Again, I think the fact that it does not belong here is patently obvious Mateo LeFou 22:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Working together

Hmmm .... maybe it is time for me to get actively involved once more with this article ... just like I did last year around November - December .... Oh! But that was when both pro-Chavez and anti-Chavez editors worked together to bring the article to FA status. If pro and anti Chavez editors could then agree on an article that became FA, it should even be easier to agree now when it is not even a FAC. Just a thought. ;-) Anagnorisis 16:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hehe I fought for it to stay as a FA ;). I would gladly welcome a peer review from your part. What might it take for it to reach FA again? Also note a few things also changed sucha as WP:BLP becoming policy, a few things that are disallowed are unsourced criticism, poorly source criticism, guilt by association, and critics overwhelming the article, as for the latter please read my user page for more details on how we can be in harmony with this policy and WP:NPOV. Flanker 17:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict: I wish you *would* get involved, but I have understood your reluctance. A read-through of the old talk pages shows remarkable consensual work. That environment prevailed here until the end of June, when there was a dramatic downturn after a revert of six-months' worth of work, with no prior talk page discussion. I continue to advocate for summarizing and trimming of both articles, in a consensual process, and those efforts continue to be blocked. It appears that the block is due to a refusal to allow the main article to incorporate balance. I regret that the extensive good faith work I had done to reduce Criticism back in June,[9] when we were working towards Summary Style after the revert, was rejected by the majority here. My mistake was to start working to trim from the bottom: as soon as I trimmed criticism, editors refused to allow any other summarization of the article, creating in effect an article that is too large, has no room for badly-needed updates, as well as a POV fork, resulting in two unbalanced articles. I suggest that this time, we start from the top, trim the fat to daughter articles, incorporating balance along the way. Saravask had trimmed the article before he quit it, but the revert took us back to the longer version. I have made this offer multiple times, but am hesitant to do the work myself, since I had done almost all of the work in May and June, in a consensual process which was later rejected. It is ridiculous that work on these articles has now been stalled for two months, when there is so much to be done. (Edit conflict, adding on note about Flanker's persistent misunderstanding of BLP, as pointed out to him by multiple editors and admins.) Sandy 17:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Everything was trimmed initially Sandy as you can see the version before WGee made the bold edit, I am not against factual criticism being added (again why don't you readd the crime explosion statistics in a NPOV sentence?) as a matter of fact I am for it However filling the article with the verbose opinion criticism found in criticism of Hugo Chavez is not really a good option, how many more times can you repackage "he is a dictator because I say so"? Again criticism balances praise, the article is almost devoid of the latter because of the good faith and encyclopedic value from almost all editors.: Flanker 17:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I perversely believe the articles are better and more reliable now than they were when the main article had FAC status. Thanks largely to the persistent battle between the two groups of editors. The constant refining of wording and sources has meant that everything is being analysed to a finer and finer degree. If you look at the article before Xmas, it was too loose and full of weasel words and weak claims. Although the personal temperature has risen considerably between editors which is a shame, I actually believe that both the articles and the talk page banter represent as informed and interesting dialogue as one is likely to find on Chavez anywhere in the English speaking media! Sorry to take some enjoyment from your discomforts guys! All I can offer as advice is to keep up the hyper analysis of every source and don't get too bogged down in personalities of other editors. I hope to check changes as much as I can - my own POV, for what it's worth, is that I have certain broad sympathies with Chavez's stated goals, but fear the almost spiritual influence of Castro on Chavez which could cause problems for many, including Cubans.--Zleitzen 17:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Another edit conflict:I agree with your assessment of the former article, and don't think it was ever FA quality. Fortunately, FA standards have risen significantly, but the quality of this article has also risen. We also have everything very well referenced now, so summarizing and trimming should be easier. But, I still believe we need to summarize, balance, and trim. An article this long, with a POV fork, will not likely pass FA, and the article is badly out of date. I continue to believe that Foreign policy should be realigned according to area of policy focus, and expanded: that is one example of work that needs to be done to bring the article to date. Because the revert took us back to Dec 2005, we are still working with outdated text. Sandy 17:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

continue to believe that Foreign policy should be realigned according to area of policy focus, and expanded: Could you expand on this? Flanker 18:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The original article had considerable limitations (I guess I ended up agreeing with Sandy) but for the opposite reasons ;). I certainly enjoy reading other people's POV and that may be a reason I am attracted to controversial subjects as opposed to the normal type. Flanker 17:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the old consensual work was achieved because we were willing to compromise just so that the article wouldn't go too much in the other direction. I think we feared the article would end up being FA without being neutral enough. One side feared it would have too much criticism, and the other too much praise. Thus, the pro-Chavez guys were just happy pushing to remove all unsourced and obvious POV criticism, without this meaning the article having to include their own POV praise of Chavez; and on the other hand, tha anti-Chavez group were happy by just removing all flowery praise. Basically we agreed that if the info could be supported by sources, then it would go in -of course using neutral language (this was at times trickier than deciding what to include and what not). The other thing that helped a lot was that we got lot of help from editor Silence, who helped copyedit the article (btw, he is an excellent copyeditor, but likes to get involved only during the FA review process). In the end, it is not that difficult to agree on the facts that are sourced -what is more difficult is to agree on the exact language. If editors really care about the article and about informing the reader, sooner or later they will agree on what to have and what not; however, if it all about egos or about having fun and trolling .... well, then it will be a long process. Anagnorisis 19:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

But you are talking on the level of content dispute, and we are a long ways from that level. We have, besides POV and content disputes, misinterpretation of WP:BLP, use of non-reliable sources, and a POV fork, because editors won't allow a balance of criticism in this article. When you actually look at the level of wording of individual sentences, we don't often disagree (except for the times when Flanker introduces errors, which required drawn-out time-consuming discussions, such as here and here.) In other words, unless editors become committed to working towards balance, according to Wiki policies, it's going to be slow going. Sandy 20:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

FA status

What might it take for it to reach FA again?

• 1a) prose, we're not in bad shape, but it is a constant chore to keep the grammar, spelling and punctuation correct. It would be time saving if some changes were proposed first on the talk page.
• 1b) comprehensive, we're not even close. The article is seriously outdated, and any FAC reviewer will question why the article doesn't even touch on the items they see in the daily headlines, and have seen for at least six months. When Saravask got this through FA, many people weren't hearing about Chavez in their daily news. Now they are, and what they are hearing isn't even touched upon in this article. Foreign policy needs a complete overhaul, for example.
• 1c) Factually accurate. The older parts of the article are not up to current standards for inline citations, which have gotten significantly tougher since this article was FA. Further, the article relies heavily on a biased source, Venezuelanalysis, which doesn't comply with WP:RS, and that doesn't fly on FA. FAC is much harder than when Saravask got the POV old version through. To solve the lack of references in the older text, I have long suggested that we cut a lot of it to the daughter articles, so that we have less retro-referencing work to do. Poor referencing is almost a guaranteed Object on FAC these days. I believe this could be fixed easily, if editors would commit to it.
• 1d) Neutral. Never, and NPOV is a guaranteed no-no on FAC. And, savvy reviewers these days look at the talk page history. The sooner editors here decide to work together to combat POV, the sooner the talk page will reflect that.
• 1e) Stable, we seem to be much better now on that score, and think it would pass FAC.
• 2a) Lead, very good shape. Complies with FAC.
• 2b) Headings, very good shape.
• 2c) TOC, very good shape.
• 3) Images, a big problem, and they'll never get past Jkelly, who always checks them on FACs. Almost all of the images used in these articles have dubious to inaccurate Fair Use rationale, and need to be deleted from Wiki. Although 172 uploaded most of them, you can't lift images from the BBC, AP, and Reuters. You just can't do that. All of our images should be from Commons, or at least, there should be very few that are Fair Use. Among us, the person who best understands Commons, IMO, is Enano275.
• 4) Length, Summary Style. We're not even close. I've been asking that we do it for months, the group here has resisted. Savvy reviewers on FAC now know how to compare overall and prose size, and check carefully for use of Summary Style. We are in very bad shape here, but this deficiency is easily corrected.

Sorry for answering a question you asked of Anagnorisis, Flanker, but since I'm a very active reviewer at both FAR and FAC, I felt qualified. Sandy 20:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I know you are qualified and appreciate your input, that said the FA process really left a sour taste in my mouth, I have turned my attention in trying to make the best encyclopedic article posible (ie it explains the situation the best to a layman) as opposed to a specific rulset of FA which I find even more invasive and arbitrary than typical wikipedia policy. But if both miraculously coincide with little effort I would not complain. Flanker 04:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Not an accurate description: FA encompasses policy, describing what *all* articles should strive for. It is not more invasive or arbitrary: it is policy in a nutshell. Of course, it would force you to use real sources and remove POV and images which violate copyright, so you might not be interested in pursuing it, but that's another story. Sandy 04:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I could argue that it is not what Wikipedia is since it migrated from Nupedia, meaning creating an encyclopedia tha anyone can edit, frankly i am not opposed to peer review, but a real one, not incredibly supperficial peer reviews that can remove FA status without consensus and without any real merit. Flanker 17:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Foreign policy

Copied from above:

continue to believe that Foreign policy should be realigned according to area of policy focus, and expanded: Could you expand on this? Flanker 18:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The article currently devotes a lot of space to ancient history (Argentina, Latin American integration), and then gives a few examples of foreign relations "gaffes". It makes no attempt to present a comprehensive overview of his current foreign policy. The whole Latin American integration thing could be one paragraph, history, and then his current policies, by area of focus, should be included. It is not accurate to cover his foreign policy by geographical region: his relations with Mexico, Peru and Brazil, for example, are not the same as with Argentina and Brazil, are not the same as Colombia, are not the same as Cuba. His relations with Iran, Libya, Syria are not the same as Saudi Arabia/Iraq. His policy wrt OPEC should be touced upon, and then there's Russia/arms, China, whatever with North Korea, that needs to be covered, along with his anti-"imperialism", anti-US/Europe/Israel thing. We need to find a definition of his foreign policy objectives/accomplishments, and update/re-do everything, IMO. I don't know how to label each of these areas of foreign policy focus, but I've seen articles covering them. We can't just fail to cover items which make headlines daily, and have for months; the article currently ignores major topics, and fails to be comprehensive. Sandy 20:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree with you that the section is not comprehensive enough, we cannot began to expand it while still retaining extraneous details about Chavez's controversial sound bites, a kidnapping, a hurricane relief subsidy, and other news headlines that fail to really explain Chavez's foreign policy. Let's begin to explain motives, goals, and causes in Chavez's foreign policy, rather than popular media episodes. I just got a subscription to International Affairs (by the Chatham House) and Foreign Affairs; perhaps I can search their archives for some meaningful information. -- WGee 22:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I never thought Katrina was relevant, and each "sound bite gaffe" should be covered in the daughter article, and summarized back to this article in, maybe, two or three sentences. Yes, we need to aim for the big picture, rather than these momentary news headlines. Sandy 01:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Katrina and the subsidized oil is crucial in understanding that his stated goal is opposition to the US government rather than the people of the US which he constantly referrs to as "brothers" whether you agree as honest or not. Flanker 04:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Reliable source, please, because right now, the text doesn't say anything close to that, I've never seen a reference which says that, and because it doesn't say anything like that, there is no context and the text doesn't fit. Sandy 04:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Mexico hopes to settle difference with Venezuela before the end of Fox's term Sandy 04:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OT since I am currently in Mexico their episode only shows that the left will always be attacked as non-democratic but the right can do what it pleases without any sort of international condemnation. If Venezuelan elections where only a tenth as ilegitimate you would never see such a lackadaisical support from the mum MSM. Flanker 17:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Source discussing two areas of foreign policy focus: 1) reaching out to countries who have been isolated by U.S. foreign policy and 2) part of Venezuela's campaign for a non-permanent seat on the United Nations' Security Council.[10]

Intereference in affairs of other Latin American countries:

• Fernández: Chávez es un factor de perturbación en elecciones de otros países. El Universal (1 September 2006).

Sandy 22:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

More news from today explaining his current foreign policy focus:

• Gunson, Phil. U.N. is the next stop on Chávez's tour against `imperialism'. Miami Herald (2 September 2006).

Sandy 13:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Chavismo and Chavista

There is a couple of very short articles (not marked as stubs): Chavismo and Chavista. Please check these articles, perhaps they could be merged in some other place JRSP 14:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll take the liberty of redirecting Chavista to Chavismo. Any objections? --Zleitzen 15:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I left a note for Anagnoris, as he was very involved in that article. Sandy 17:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The articles should certainly be merged as per policy. But it is not a priority. I redirected it to save the bother of a protrated session where the articles will inevitably be merged anyway. --Zleitzen 21:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think they can be merged if the complete text is merged; we just should make sure that all involved editors are on board, since there has already been so much contentious editing. Sandy 22:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Anagnorisis concurred with the redirect, as long as no text is lost, so I'll re-do it. Sandy 00:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Textual inaccuracies and unreliable sources

I have reverted Flanker's last change for the following reasons:

• 1. It inaccurately attributed the 80% number to the Boston Globe, Windfall article.
• 2. It uses a primary source, rather than a reliable source. (The current text also uses a primary souce -- a VenAmCham presentation -- but it is backed by and discussed in the Boston Globe source, as required by WP:RS).
• 3. I am certain you should be able to find an EU report to say the same, if it is true. There is no reason to continue introducing primary and unreliable sources into the article.
• 4. You have continued to insert Venezuelanalysis as a source, against WP:RS and WP:V. [11] Please take the time to find reliable sources: I don't have time to do everything. Thanks Sandy 18:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

1)It must be a mistake the link is to DATOS.

2) Primary source is a reliable source.

3) Why does this involve the EU?

4) Venanalysis is a reliable source linked and reported byt the Mainstream media.

For the record this is the source Page 18 [12] Flanker 19:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Which clause in WP:RS or WP:V precludes the use of Venezuelanalysis as a source? Similarly, which clause prohibits the use of primary sources? -- WGee 21:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Actually WP:V and WP:RS encourage the use of primary sources. The editor who performed these deletions misunderstands Wikipedia policy. Allegations of biased sources are a different matter, but I suggest restoring all citations that were blanked merely because the source was primary. Durova 16:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the exact text from WP:RS, bolding from the original text:

• A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term most often refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. It could be an official report, an original letter, a media account by a journalist who actually observed the event, or an autobiography. Statistics compiled by an authoritative agency are considered primary sources. In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material. Most primary-source material requires training to use correctly, especially on historical topics. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections. We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability

• A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources. Secondary sources produced by scholars and published by scholarly presses are carefully vetted for quality control and can be considered authoritative.

• A tertiary source usually summarizes secondary sources. Encyclopedias, for instance, are tertiary sources.

Durova, please explain further your interpretation, since the text appears to say the opposite. We have one primary source document (a PDF of a presentation) which is discussed and analyzed by a secondary reliable publisher (a Boston Globe article), being replaced by a primary source which has not been reviewed by any publisher. This is exactly the situation described at WP:RS, which specifically says, In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material. Most primary-source material requires training to use correctly, especially on historical topics. Sandy 19:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I received a request to return here and repost the RfC. Here it is (I hope this was the section it meant): Persistent removal of well-sourced material, claiming violation of WP:BLP. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies

A good description of appropriate primary source use is at Wikipedia:No original research#Primary and secondary sources. The requirement We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher, refers to the source's verifiability. For example, if my family Bible at home says that my great-great-great grandfather was Walt Whitman's brother, and my mother has a biography entry in Wikipedia, then I can't use that evidence to add the relationship to her Wikipedia article. If I pay a vanity publisher to publish that information I can't cite it either, because vanity publishers do not fact check for accuracy. However, if a biography of my mother gets published in The New Yorker and includes a legible image of the family Bible, then anyone could cite that original source in Wikipedia. Durova 20:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Now I understand the problem: it doesn't appear that you were answering what you thought you were answering. We have two different problems going on here: 1) primary sources being used in place of secondary, reliable sources, and 2) cleansing of criticism per WP:BLP. Your response mixed the two, and now that you have clarified it, agrees with what I've been saying. Sandy 20:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I received the following at my talk page:

Hate to keep pestering you, but you've mixed two different problems we've got on the same article. First, an editor is using primary sources, and your first response indicated that was OK (it's not, per WP:RS). Second, the same editor constantly deletes very well-sourced criticism from reliable, secondary sources, claiming WP:BLP. Your response mixed the two issues, implying that it's OK for him to use primary sources. Sorry for the mess, Sandy 20:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea for editors to create an RfC section that sets out the issues. I was guessing here. Actually primary sources are fine as long as they're published by a reputable outlet and presented in a "just the facts, ma'am" manner rather than as a springboard for editorial speculation. A featured article where I edit frequently, Joan of Arc has twenty-six references to original sources (out of 77 footnotes, some of which cite more than one source). If there's a different problem with blanking citations to reputable secondary sources, please summarize. Durova 21:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The link is on the RfC. It's here. (Glad to know someone is working on JofA, who is FARC'd right now.) Sandy 21:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Now I see that there was a different talk page where the section was posted. BTW Joan of Arc is not a FARC. It's just in review for minor editing issues. I requested the review myself. Durova 21:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that prohibits a Primary source per policy is that it can only come from a reliable source, if I were to host the PDF on a personal server and hosted it here a case could be made, but it comes from Datos own website so I feel it is without merit. Flanker 17:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Income growth with the poorest sectors of society

I tried to create a good encyclopedia, even going so far as to making sure people understand Venezuela, the source I link is a verifiable opposition source documenting a 140% growth in income in the poorest sectors of society, I could quote that it is right there, but instead as always chose to adjust it for inflation showing an 80% REAL growth. The irony is that it was the same as before only it was 55% growth (this was an update on that data from the same source). (Just my opinion: it is wonderful news that real income is growing so fast so steady).

It seems that even when I do simple additions and multiplications to show a more realistic and less positive result it will not be tolerated.

As for the use of primary sources it is allowed in Wikipedia, however if you prefer Sandy we can use the Datanalisis quote from the economist showing a doubling of income among strata E. From another opposition pollster. Flanker 19:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Reliably-sourced commentary on the income growth (the reason we don't use primary source numbers in the absence of secondary reliably-sourced context, analysis, and commentary):

"The surge in spending helped spur economic growth of 9.6 percent in the first half of the year in Venezuela, the world's fifth-largest crude exporter. The 80 percent spending rise in the first half topped increases of 43 percent for all of last year and 61 percent in 2004. Venezuela hasn't saved income since 2001. ... Chavez has increased spending to help boost his popularity as he seeks to win a second six-year term in December elections, Bottome said."[13] Sandy 00:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the government is spending or using Keynesian economics is no secret, HOWEVER the key point is that money is reaching the neediest, at a rate more consistent to actual growth (ie if it was just handouts it would level off to a degree). And it is not just Datos reporting it but Datanalisis using similar findings. Flanker 02:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the thing about that sort of quote. Yes, Bloomberg is reliable, but this doesn't make Bottome's statement reliable. It just makes it very-probable that Bottome in fact said those things. But how impartial is Bottome/Veneconomia?

"Veneconomia's big grouse with the government, it would appear, is its failure to support the private construction sector, " making use of its capital and know-how" and turning instead to housing solutions offered by the Chinese and Iranians.... the magazine, as usual, fails to analyze why the Venezuelan President sought other solutions than the traditional private sector sources. No doubt, a question worth asking."

[14]

Make no mistake: for all I know vheadline.com is totally biased. But this kind of stuff is indicative of what's wrong with all the Chavez articles. I think "reliably-sourced" material that just quotes some guy (who obviously has a dog in the fight) is deletable.

Why not just include the information-oriented stuff from Bloomberg? i.e., the first couple sections of Sandy's quote. I undertand the "primary sources" guidelines differently: they state quite clearly that primary sources require some training to use properly. I presume it's because one needs to know how to authenticate the document, etc.

Sandy says this illustrates "the reason we don't use primary source numbers in the absence of secondary reliably-sourced context, analysis, and commentary" and I disagree strongly. The numbers from a primary source, when they've been cited by a respected intermediary like Bloomberg, do not require an opinion/context/interpretation to be attached to them before they can be included here. I do not find a basis for that suggestion in WP:RS. Mateo LeFou 18:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. The numbers from a primary source, when they've been cited by a respected intermediary like Bloomberg, do not require an opinion/context/interpretation to be attached to them before they can be included here. You are misunderstanding: as far as I can tell, we're saying/the policy is saying the same thing. We don't use primary source numbers in the absence of secondary reliably-sourced context or analysis. (This is what Flanker often does: inserts primary sourced data in the absence of context or commentary or interpretation.) Now that the primary source numbers have been put into context by a secondary reliable source, then they can be used, along with the context provided by someone who has analyzed the numbers. And, in case you were wondering, the two most highly-respected economist groups in Venezuela are Bottome and Pedro Palma. Sandy 21:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

They do not give an opinion on the Datos data or even income, so to tie it with Datos is more original research than giving people a scientific poll result and letting them decide. As for respected I guess the question is by whom. Flanker 23:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No, we're not saying the same thing. I'm disagreeing strongly. The requirement in WP:RS that the information in a primary source be published by a secondary source is not because of "the absence of context or secondary analysis." As a general rule, the less context and analysis (read: interpretation) of factual matters, the better. The requirement in WP:RS is there because the process of authenticating a primary source is best left to experts.

We must assume that a reliable second-party does not publish information unless it meets with industry verifiability standards. To reiterate again: when the facts have gone through reliable hands, they are assumed to be valid facts. That does not mean that a fact requires this mishmash of commentary and counter-commentary in order to be considered reliable. Mateo LeFou 01:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

News?

The Guardian: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/300806Ch%E1vez.htm " US accused of bid to oust Chávez with secret funds"] --Striver 23:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, Duncan Campbell, The Guardian, Eva Golinger, and if we follow the path, it will probably also turn up Wayne Madsen, who notoriously fueled the "US Navy ship in the coup" story published, also, by The Guardian. Let's see what the New York Times, the BBC, the Washington Post, the LA Times, or the Boston Globe say. Sandy 01:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian is a RS JRSP 02:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. That doesn't mean we should rush to add every Madsen-ish claim to the article, until we have established due weight. It is not surprising that The Guardian would be the publisher of this kind of story. Sandy 02:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

More balanced reports:

• Chavez allies asking: Who gets U.S. aid?
• U.S. aid in Venezuela raises suspicions in Chavez camp
• AP: U.S. aid stirs Venezuela's suspicion

Sandy 04:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify Israel-ven article and criticism rely on using the most critical sources in verbose statements to higlight problems sometimes using the worst quotes available, just keeping it real. Flanker 04:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That's funny: I read dozens of sources there saying exactly the same thing. Sandy 04:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That only proves that he has PLENTY of enemies, a subsection about anti-semetism or authoritarianism can easily be handled in a NPOV approach instead it is finding the most vicious critics and RS and putting a bullhorn on their quotes. Flanker 17:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Same point as above: there is a story here, and there is news here. Is it not possible to include the facts and leave out the interpretations of Golinger et. al.? Mateo LeFou 18:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Even nicer would be if we hashed out the text here on the talk page, so we don't have to do fourteen copy edits. I personally think it's not a very interesting story (that the US pushes for democracy and opposes autocratic militaristic regimes is not really a big surprise, so I expect the text will be somewhat dull) - just more headline-grabbing from Chavez's very effective PR machine. Maybe a sentence, at most two, but not the sensationalist angle which (not surprisingly) comes from The Guardian. Zleitzen and WGee seem particularly good at achieving neutrality in text and working it into context. Sandy 21:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need any more sources about the United States' aid to anti-Chavez groups. The United States already admits to funding groups that eventually participated in the mutiny. The controversy is whether or not the US did so with the intention of ousting Chavez, and that controversy is already well documented, albeit with verbosity and tendentious statements. All in all, the sources are OK; we just need to better synthesize their assertions. -- WGee 05:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, if we decide to use any of the new material (above), it should be put into the larger context: the reason it's coming up is that Chavez is trying to push through a new law which would (I may not have the right wording on the legalities) make it illegal for any organization to receive any outside funding. This hasn't been well covered in the articles or in the English-speaking press, but is better covered in the Spanish-language press. It is part of a series of laws which will restrict/have restricted any means of opposing or campaigning against him. Sandy 12:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Archive?

Unless anyone disagrees, I'd like to archive Table of Contents 1 - 30. I will leave the POV list in archives, so it will no longer show on the talk page, but we know where it is. Sandy 04:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Sandy 13:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Because of Chavez I can't respect Latin American Socialists

Brain dead and brainwashed oppressed people unable to elevate their minds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.48.144.3 (talk • contribs)

Obviously this is an encyclopedia and not a place to level respect or praise. Please there are plenty of forums for this. Flanker 17:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I just spent time reading your recent posts of today, and they were also message board chat, original research, and opinion, having no relevance to completing work on the article. Please stay on topic, and respond with information from reliable sources and per Wiki policies, so that the rest of us don't have to spend so much time reviewing chatty talk page entries. Thanks, Sandy 17:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

President for Life

News to be added to the President for Life section:

We currently have:

The BBC says that Chavez "has made no secret of the fact that he is in favour of amending the constitution so that he can run again for president in 2012. In spite of a presidential term limit of 12 years, according to The Economist, Chávez often suggests that he will remain in power for 25 years, a claim he denies as a misinterpretation of his intent. Chávez has said that if the opposition boycotts the 2006 Venezuelan presidential election he "might sign a decree calling for a popular referendum - Do you agree that Chavez should run for a third term in 2013?” He is campaigning for re-election in December.

But recent news from Caracas1830 indicates that he is now promising the referendum, even though the opposition has not boycotted the elections:

Chávez promised that, if elected, he will personally convoke a midterm recall referendum in the year 2010 without the need for petition signatures as was the case with the 2004 recall referendum. The 2010 referendum would consult the electorate about modifying the Constitution to allow for the indefinite reelection of a President.

These need to be merged and updated: we should now be able to delete the silliness about him denying his claims to president for life. We now have his exact intentions, more clearly stated in the Spanish version than in the English press.

• Markey, Patrick. Chavez to call term limit referendum. Reuters (1 September 2006)
• Government of Venezuela. Chávez anuncia que convocará su referéndum revocatorio de mandato. (1 September 2006) Retrieved 2 September 2006. (in Spanish)

Sandy 12:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Also reported in Forbes:

• Sanchez, Fabiola. Chavez Says He Uncovered Coup Plot. Forbes (1 September 2006)

Sandy 13:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Report from MercoSur, President for Life, sending buddy Rodriguez to Cuba:

• Chavez promises supporters “elected” president for life. MercoPress (3 September 2006). Retrieved 3 September 2006. Sandy 15:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Announced in Qatar press, Chavez's plans for Venezuela:

• Chavez announces 2010 referendum. The Peninsula (3 September 2006).

" ... his new presidential term would mark a new phase of his economic and political plan, to transform Venezuela into the Venezuelan Socialist Republic. ... “Now, between 2007 to 2021, we have 14 years to plant, deepen the roots and extend the revolution in all directions so that Venezuela becomes the Socialist Bolivarian Republic in every way, for true equality, liberty — a democracy that is deep, of the people, participatory and proactive,” he said.

He outlined the plan, which he named after Simon Bolivar, liberator of Venezuela and much of South America. “One: a new socialist ethic; two, a socialist mode of production, a socialist economy; three, a revolutionary heroic democracy where the power of the people will be the maximum power of the republic; four, supreme social joy; five, a new national geopolitic, decentralised development, development in the fields and development in the cities; six, a new international geopolitic, a multipolar world, a balanced world; seven, Venezuela as an energetic world power, a world oil power,” he said.

... he named his plan “The National and Socialist Plan of Simon Jose Antonio de la Santisima Trinidad Bolivar y Palacio,” Bolivar’s full name. "

There is, in a nutshell, Chavez's plan for Venezuela; a socialist country with a president for life. It all needs to be included in the article. Sandy 15:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"President for life" is a constitutional position held by certain past dictators - I don't think that is equivalent to Chavez's proposals for the number Presidential terms a leader can have. Many countries have unlimited numbers of terms for political leaders and it isn't particularly controversial. The British Prime Minister can continue for as long as he is elected. The French President has unlimited terms of office available. Helmet Cole was chancellor of Germany for 16 years and so on. "President for life" isn't the correct terminology for this, Sandy. Even Castro falls outside this bracket, he sits 5 year terms subject to elections (albeit via the Cuban electoral referendum system which makes his removal highly unlikely) and thus is not constitutionally recognised as a "President for life". A multiparty electoral system with unlimited terms is merely a conventional proposition by Chavez, neither a President for Life proposition nor a Castro style "revolutionary democracy". That is the case at the moment at any rate, though Chavez actually coined the term "revolutionary democracy" when applied to Cuba so we'll have to see!.--Zleitzen 15:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Other examples that challenge the US-Centric view of only one (or zero) re-lections Tage Erlander 23 years, Pierre Trudeau and FDR (could have served 16+ years had he not died) of course the ammendment followed. Flanker 17:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand, Zleitzen. It's more tongue in cheek (although one paper above did use that headline) because some editors here have denied this for months, even though it's been his obvious intention since he said he wouldn't go even if 90% voted him out (which they also deny he said). At any rate, the entire paragraph needs to be reworked and updated, and we can now lose the empty denial of his intent. He is now speaking of being there til 2021, which is what the pro-democracy forces have known/said all along. There's plenty of material here for putting together a better paragraph, summarizing his intent, without the river in Egypt denials. Sandy 18:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not a competition Sandy if he never said until now that indefinite re-election is on the table does not mean it should have been added before, it has to be handled under encyclopedic standards. As for the pro-democracy forces... what is their website :) Flanker 19:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In office 22 years? William Lyon Mackenzie King did that (although admittedly in three chunks). He was no dictator, if he could get the House of Commons to decide an issue, he would. And, if he could put it on a national referendum, he would do that. King was uncomfortable even with the powers given to the Canadian Prime Minister (which are limited compared to the powers of the Presidential offices around the globe), so your whole "anyone in power for longer than 12 years must be a dictator" theory goes out the window.

It was Chavez and his party who drafted and passed the current constitution that prohits 2 reelections. His willingness to change his own laws to suit his present needs supports the president for life theory, it is only a matter of time. Prime Minister of Canada for

I disagree the changes were approved by referendum for a constituyente (99) select the Asamblea constituyente through votes (99) and pass that constitution by referendum (00) so it was really the people that initially changed the constitution, a second change has to be done by them again. Flanker 20:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What Is Going on Here?

Why are you POV editors continuously reverting my edits. You claim that they are "my opinions"? What are you talking about? There is no opinion or speculation of mine in there. All I have done is state in a condensed form the claims in those sources. There is nothing in there that has come from my mind. Your deletions are vandalism, and I will continue to place my edits back in until you explain to me what Im doing wrong, instead of just sending me this garbage rhetoric to my userpage without actually explaining anything. Can we just have some maturity here please for God's sake. I don't care if this annoys you. You are the ones being irresponsible here, and as I said before you are not going to stop me from placing my edits until we straighten this out. I have followed the rules for editing on wikipedia, and have done nothing wrong.

-User:60.234.157.64

Please don't compromise the neutrality of Wikipedia, as you are doing to Hugo Chávez. Indeed you used the word "allegedly", but Wikipedia is based on factual data, and by inserting alleged content to the article you are inevitably causing POV disruption (especially when your edits are promptly contested). I don't really think that your sources are as reliable as you claim. For example, citing the US Department of State as source does not seem plausible to me, being Chávez one of the biggest critics of the Bush administration. The information provided by the US Department of State might even be correct, but the bias is inherently evident, so you should look for independent sources instead. Perhaps you should consider the article Criticism of Hugo Chávez as a better option for editing. Now, please don't be persistent with your edits when they are being reverted (it's called a revert war and you may end up blocked for that and/or vandalism), and refrain from being hostile towards those who perform the reverts. That's considered trolling and you'll find yourself discredited if you behave in that matter. I believe that you want to make productive contributions, but you must follow the right path or you will find Wikipedia a very unpleasant experience. --Húsönd 13:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

User:60.234.157.64, I'm sorry you have been treated unfairly here. I have limited internet access this week, and will be glad to help you deal with this next week. I'm also sorry to see a number of editors and even admins have bitten you, unfairly and incorrectly. Husond's response to you above is mistaken. There are multiple and varied sources backing the text you are trying to insert. It seems I can't leave the articles even for two days. Please hold off on your inserts, wait for me to have full internet access, and I will help you insert the text correctly. In the meantime, I sincerely apologize for the way you've been treated on Wikipedia. We have LONG discussed on these talk pages about the MULTIPLE sources of criticism of Chavez, they are detailed on the criticism talk page, and the reverts of your edits are not in good faith. It is correct that you have done nothing wrong, but it seems that if I turn my back for a second, any pro-democracy editor to the Chavez articles will be bitten. I'll be around next week to help you out. Please don't be discouraged, but don't continue to replace your edits until I'm here to help out, as WP:3RR is strictly enforced on Wiki, and you can be blocked. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help, but my time and access is limited this week. Sandy 15:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the new editor is not so new after all[15][16] JRSP 15:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it (???) ... it's an IP? OK, maybe I need better internet access <darn>. Well, whether he's new or not, his contributions are referenced and accurate, so he's still been treated unfairly. Sandy 15:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see a boatload of "Joel"s as socks, but if you were a sock, why use the same name? Well, if I have defended this person inappropriately, I still think it's unfair that his edits were labeled as NPOV and OR, when they're not. 15:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Here's an example: "Venezuela is also fertile grounds for international narco- and islamic terrorism" - you can't have that on the page without attributing where the claim comes from, without providing substance or context to the claim or without presenting it in a neutral fashion and stating it as fact. Whatsmore, the removal of contradictory material to add substance to the claims is not going to help the editors case. Plus, on both pages, the editor messed up a load of other references in the process. The reverts are perfectly acceptable, particuarly since the editor was asked to discuss the claims on the "criticism of Hugo Chavez" page. --Zleitzen 16:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that I "bit" the editor, and certainly not because of a pro-democracy stance. But I checked the sources that have been provided and I cannot regard them as factual. Thus, reference to them on the main article about Hugo Chávez is inherently POV. If these sources are allowed to stay, then I reckon this article is doomed, for both sympathizers and opponents of Hugo Chávez will provide a constant downpour of POV material just because it is alleged somewhere.--Húsönd 16:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Husond did not "bite" anyone; rather, he very civilly asked the anonymous editor to desist his tendentious edits. It is ridiculous that someone cannot kindly critique another's edits without being accused of "biting" him. Husond's revert was entirely in order, especially his removal of unevidenced allegations by military defectors, as reported by a blog (which is not an acceptable source) and a far-right, virulently anti-Islamic website (also not an acceptable source).

On a related note, I am disturbed by Sandy's immediate and effusive sympathy towards any editor who makes an anti-Chavez contribution to this article. A critique against an anti-Chavez edit does not equate to a campaign to suppress "pro-democracy" editors. This "us vs. them" mentality, and the belief that editors who contribute on the side of "democracy" are unassailable, is reminiscent of a troll.

-- WGee 18:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Be nice, WGee: are you really calling me a troll? Note that JRSP pointed out the possibilities (which I missed from a slow internet connection) in one sentence (and I've not noticed all these anti-Chavez contributions you mention, or that I treat them any differently than pro-Chavez newcomers). Sockpuppet or not, the user's edits were not POV. They were perhaps poorly-sourced, perhaps not well worded, and if s/he was a sock, violated 3RR, but from what I could tell from a lousy internet connection, it was material that has been and can be sourced to reliable sources. Since JRSP was probably right, not worth worrying about, anyway. the editor messed up a load of other references in the process. We get that frequently, from many of the regular editors here. Sandy 23:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we have to be careful, assume good faith is fine but we must keep our eyes open with "new" accounts[17] JRSP 04:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting <grrrrr>. Nonetheless, WP:AGF is not just "fine", and not just a guideline: it's official policy. And the point above wasn't that the new user might or not be legit, but that the content was not POV or OR (just because others weren't aware the Al Qaeda claims were made by Chavez's own pilot, the Margarita terrorism haven claims are well documented, etc.) Newcomers are not treated differently: we assume good faith, and follow NPOV policy. For another editor to respond that the content was OR (when those who follow these articles know that it was based on RS, even if the editor didn't cite them properly) or would be better in the Criticism article was what was questionable. Sandy

Circus Amok Photograph Depicting Chavez

First, I apologize for putting this photograph up without giving this page more consideration given the controversial subject. I put this image up not as a partisan--As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out with Chavez--but as someone who went to go see a free circus on Coney Island on Labor Day. Circus Amok--see Jennifer Miller--is an award-winning production that has received grants for its work. In their act, they were illustrating the differences between the South American Presidents, and our own. Our own President's record did not look as favorable as the South Americans, at least for in terms of what they attempt to do for their own people. That's besides the point. I think it is relevant to this page because of of a high-profile act and that Chavez is obviously influencing artistic expression (that is government-funded, mind you). That's relevant. Besides, it's an interesting photograph that I make a bet people would find interesting to view, and this is great page to do so. It adds dimension that simple figurative photographs do not, on their own. I request it be resurrected, please. You all will note I took pains to write a neutral caption. --DavidShankBone 17:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it could fit in Media representation of Hugo Chávez (not sure) but you'll need to add some text to the article to provide some context for the image. JRSP 17:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Context for other editors: we are discussing the relevance of this imageChavez Homage by David Shankbone.jpg to the article JRSP 18:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In case we're still discussing it, I can't see any valid reason for adding these photos to any Chavez article: maybe they belong in Jennifer Miller, although I'm surprised that entry achieves notability. Sandy 23:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to read Hugo Chavez main article more, but I would like to see it on both pages. Context for the main page could perhaps be done as short paragraph about Chavez and New York City. First, because of the sizeable Latino (and Venezuelan) populace here; second, because Citgo, at his behest, gave breaks to poor people in NYC for heating fuel; and third, that performance itself, which was funded with an NEA-grant and has won awards. That could go in the New York paragraph. What do you think? Or is there already? --DavidShankBone 19:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully request that you guys think twice about removing photographs that aren't just junk. I look at photographs as seeds on the pages. They can be an invitation for people to write something--a picture is worth a thousand words. It's my way of trying to get people motivated to contribute writing; that gets foiled when you guys take down something that is relevant because I haven't taken the time myself. I can't do it all, and I'm doing a lot. People like pictures, and the more good photographs Wikipedia has, the more value it is adding to the public sphere. Think about all the bloggers who would like to use photographs with no copyright. This is why I am adding so many images. I put a lot of thought into them. I'm on vacation and spending my time writing and photographing for WP. Sometimes I put up a questionable image, but not typically. I have a lot of knowledge so I can usually explain why I think something is relevant. On my User page is an example of another editor's photograph I took down. I also agreed to having my beloved 2006 Qana airstrike protest photograph removed for a more relevant one (mine found a home on Union Square). So I'm not unbending. I agreed my lingerie addition wasn't particularly useful or relevant--I just liked the photo. But now I'm challenged to get a good shot of a lingerie store! So I do put thought... --DavidShankBone 20:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

One last point: I'm doing enough work on here that I also don't want to end up creating a massive headache along the way. I feel I've read up on policies, but one always comes along I didn't know about. You guys are welcome to offer advice, or create a discussion page where people can discuss what I'm doing, and how I should be doing it. --DavidShankBone 20:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

the influence of Peruvian Juan Velasco Alvarado

JRSP, you removed the word "dictator" from that phrase. I was reading the text, and I was wondering "who the hell is Velasco?" So I clicked the link. Having read the article on Velasco, I must say that "dictator" was a remarkably accurate and concise way of summarizing what he's known for.

As it is written now, the phrase conveys very little information in 7 words. Nobody knows who this Velasco dude is, and the most important facts about him is that he's a left-leaning dude who became president through a coup, and was known for political persecution until he was overthrown. A short word for that is "dictator."

I was therefore leaning towards reinserting "dictator" when I noticed that Chavez's "inspirations" are unsourced. So I've deleted the offending phrase. If it's true that Chavez was inspired by Velasco then it should be stated, with a reference, and with an extremely concise description of Velasco. If you don't want dictator, find an equivalent word that doesn't offend your sensibilities, but please, no need to airbrush the story.

Loisel 03:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Without regard to this particular individual, Wikipedia articles can be very misleading: just a warning. Anyway, you were right in removing this poorly sourced negative material, because as WP:BLP states:

Articles about living persons must adhere strictly to NPOV and verifiability policies. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. Responsibility for justifying controversial claims rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.

-- WGee 23:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Juan Velasco Alvarado died in 1977, BLP does not apply. However, I prefer the more neutral "former President". If he was a dictator or not I don't know, but this should be discussed is his own article, not here JRSP 23:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I know he's dead, but the sentence is about Chavez: that is, Velasco's influnce on him. So BLP does apply in this case. -- WGee 20:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've provided a citation for the Velasco influence. But having checked the link back it only opens a brief section of the text as the rest is hidden by a subscription (from a search engine I read the whole piece by some quirk). Another source would be preferable. From memory I believe that Richard Gott wrote about the influence if anyone has his book to hand?--Zleitzen 23:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

POV economic figures

The article has

By December of 2001, following Chávez's imposition of capital controls, inflation fell to 13.4% the lowest in 14 years,(hee citing the central bank) while economic growth was steady at four percent.(here citing a 'rather unreliable' article)

User:SuperFlanker reverted to this version after I attempted to add some economic realism by using a more reliable source (the first one I came to, in this case the Economist). I don't mind that my edit was removed, but I would like to see this and several other economic points covered more accurately.

SuperFlanker commented "rv to JRSP´s version if we are to include inflation it has to be from start to finish (if not every year must be included)", but the inflation here cited was just one year, while I added inflation over a larger period (whatever my source had). The fact that the drop was a one-year fluke is very relevant: in fact in the following year it was at one of its highest points in recent memory. The article's failure to cite this, I conclude, is either an intentional POV slant or stunning misunderstanding of the facts.

Since I've had my edit removed, I'm not inclined to add it or a similar one back. I would ask that someone do this (I will only if no one else steps up), using common-sense guidelines:

• Use widely-accepted figures. The central bank has been known to fudge figures, but it's at least somewhat reliable. Major publications and organizations tracking countries (UN, WTO, the Economist, maybe even some newspapers like the London Times) might be better. Unsourced articles from small publications citing nebulous figures (what exactly does "economic growth" mean?) aren't good.
• Give context. If the GDP is increasing, how does it compare to the population increase? If falling, what natural disasters or international situations may be responsible? Chavez can't be responsible for everything.
• Prefer broad measures. Figures sampling many years are better than just one year, and major indeces (GDP per capita, inflation, % below some poverty line) are better than ultra-specific ones that can more easily be picked to demonstrate a particular point of view.

I don't like to see misleading statistics, so if someone with a keep eye for figures can look them over and put something accurate hee, it would be much appreciated. Let's not let politics cloud our judgment here! CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources are in short supply on the Hugo Chavez articles (note that Venezuelanalysis.com, which is highly referenced, is not a reliable source). You can find most of the reliably-sourced economic data in this article. I was traveling, and didn't follow edits closely, but IIRC (if I recall correctly), you had made an edit that used Wiki as a reference (circular reasoning, not allowed per WP:RS - perhaps my memory is incorrect). You can't source a statement in Wiki to another article in Wiki, so on that score, the revert was partially correct. Context in Venezuela is fairly simple: record high oil prices, upon which Venezuela's economy is highly dependent, and record social spending. Sandy 00:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

For the purpose of analysing the material on this issue I've drawn up a table to show the different versions.--Zleitzen 13:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Version added by CRGreathouse These reforms entailed the lowering of infant mortality rates; the implementation of a free, government-funded healthcare system; and free education up to the university level. By December of 2001, following Chávez's imposition of capital controls, inflation fell to 13.4% the lowest in 14 years, though it would rise to 31.2% in the next 12 months. Chávez's administration also reported an increase in primary school enrollment by one million students. Nevertheless, there were also significant setbacks. Notably, the inflation rate rocketed to 31% in 2002 and remained at the high level of 27% in 2003, causing a great deal of hardship for the poor. Further, per capita GDP had fallen 14% since 2000 according to the Economist.

Section on the page now supported by Flanker These reforms entailed the lowering of infant mortality rates; the implementation of a free, government-funded healthcare system; and free education up to the university level. By December of 2001, following Chávez's imposition of capital controls, inflation fell to 13.4% the lowest in 14 years, while economic growth was steady at four percent. Chávez's administration also reported an increase in primary school enrollment by one million students. Nevertheless, there were also significant setbacks. Notably, the inflation rate rocketed to 31% in 2002 and remained at the high level of 27% in 2003, causing a great deal of hardship for the poor.

References

---

"By December of 2001(...) though it would rise to 31.2% in the next 12 months" does not belong to the subsection (2000-2001) JRSP 14:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not, it seems fairly relevant?--Zleitzen 15:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It refers to 2002. JRSP 16:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

First things first, where does that figure of 31.2% come from?--Zleitzen 16:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia, a self-reference is not OK. The figure is plausible, however JRSP 16:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a reference The World Factbook, 2003 I've added it to the citations above. I need to consider it's relevance in the 2000-2001 section, perhaps another user has an opinion?--Zleitzen 16:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no issue with the economist quote:"Further, per capita GDP had fallen 14% since 2000 according to the Economist". It is verifiable, after all, and adds useful information to the page.--Zleitzen 16:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hehe where were you when Sandy did not let me put a simple division because it was original research ;) Again I am not against year by year GDP but certainly NOT arbitrary periods. Flanker 00:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The 31% figure would fit better in Hugo Chávez#2002: Coup and strike/lockout. But if we include that, then we should have to include it for each year, in the proper subsection. The 14% fall in GDP, though verifiable, refers to an arbitrary time period. Why not compare 2003 to 2005? You could choose the period to fit any POV. A global 1999-present figure (in Hugo Chávez#Economy Policy ) would be fairer. JRSP 17:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Indeed the 14% fall in GDP statement doesn't take into account the economic crisis in Latin America 1999-2002 - which was in large part a reaction to the Asian collapse. And nothing to do with Chavez. Is there a 1999-present figure?--Zleitzen 17:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but basic arithmetic does not count as OR, I guess. We could reckon the figure from annual GDP statistics. JRSP 17:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As a mathematician, it seems to me like the article would greatly benefit from taking these various mismatched and scattered statistics, and grouping them together on charts like this [18]. One makes a list, for instance

• GDP
• Unemployment
• Poverty rates
• Median income
• Inflation

Each bullet is a chart. On each chart, one shows the evolution over time since 1999 (or even earlier) of these various numbers. As there are several sources, one can put several such lines on the same chart. Finally, large jumps in the charts can be annotated with contemporaneous events (if this does not lead to mud slinging, of course.) You see these types of charts all the time in Time Magazine and such.

If the numbers were at least tabulated, I could produce the charts. Loisel 18:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There was a big fuzz about somehow arithmetic being Original research, of course I did not fight it, but disagree with it in principle. Flanker 00:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Try the World Bank for figures 2000, 2003, 2004: [19] and the current World Factbook for 2005 estimates [20]. Rd232 ^talk 10:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The chart sounds like a good way of putting any disagreements over the presentation of the economic figures to bed. We could do with 1999-2005.--Zleitzen 15:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to get my spouse to lend a hand. She actually knows how to get this data. I will also include the World Bank figures, even though 1999,2001,2002,2005 and 2006 is missing. Are the CIA World Factbook figures the same as World Bank numbers, and if not, can I string them together on a graph? Loisel 16:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's done. I couldn't yet find poverty figures, or alternate sources for GDP figures. I also uploaded the XLS file here: File:Venezuela Economic Indicators.xls. Let me know if you know of other figures. Also, right now the caption I put in the image tag of the main article isn't showing, dunno why. Loisel 20:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Caption problem solved. Loisel 20:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic, that's great. Thanks very much.--Zleitzen 23:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok since this is a strong point let me clear a few things out, the inflation reference was there long before we started editing, Sandy disagreed with the source so I put the Central Bank's figures plus the historical context referenced, second 2000 to 2003 is extremely arbitrary and frankly extremely misleading, not only regionally but because of the oil industry workstopage coups etc. It is a discussion I had with Sandy, who wants to make emphasis that it is oil boom that is responsible for current growth and I want to put 2002-2003 into context as well.Flanker 00:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If year by year figures have to be added then we will really increase the article size, previously only GDP is referenced for all 8 years, meanwhile inflation, poverty, unemployment is only start/finish. Beware using the facbook they specifically state you cannot chain economic data.Flanker 00:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on the graph? --Zleitzen 00:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I am for it give me a sec. Flanker 00:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"If year by year figures have to be added then we will really increase the article size" --> Upon the contrary. Now that all the information is concisely summarized in graph form, one can greatly reduce the play-by-play narration to a few brief highlights. Loisel 01:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Inflation

Here is a great site for historical inflation [21][22] , (the 31% was correct it just lacked historical and political turmoil) The data can be verified with central bank press releases.Flanker 00:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It is missing 2006 but it is expected to be around 15% as well.Flanker 00:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That data looks a lot like the one I'm using, except that it goes further back in time. If you want to go further back in time, be my guest, but one of the things I like about my graphs is that they line up on the time axis, it would be nice to keep it that way. Loisel 01:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess we could debate how far back, the data should match up since I believe it is the same source. Flanker 01:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

GDP

Instead of showing percentage growth perhaps the actual GDP using local currency and constant prices is best, this is actually really good Database [23] just give me the years you want, (be warned 2006 and 07 are predictions and the IMF is notorious for flawed predictions before 06 are observations which are accurate) Thet predicted 6% for 06 but through the first half it is closer to 10%.Flanker 00:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that's the data I used. My GDB is in local currency's current value, whatever that means (an interested reader can look it up since the source is referenced.)

If the IMF data differs from the one I have, it should be added to the one GDP graph (so two lines on one graph) and the caption amended.

I am also looking for poverty data, but the WDI database doesn't have it and the UN database is down for the weekend. I wasn't able to find it anywhere else, but my internet is screwy right now, so if you can find a database with that information, let me know. Loisel 01:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The UN database also matches up with the IMF and the Central Bank (the latter is the information the UN audits), Poverty can also be obtained from the INE as well. Flanker 01:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

GDP now in year 2000 VEB. Loisel 02:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

GDP/Capita

This is harder to find, it is easy to do so in dollars, but due to exchange rate fluctuations are extremely unreliable (actually it unrealistically inflates it if you are wondering), constant Bolivars per person is on the other hand the most accurate but nearly impossible to find. We could use a bit of arithmetic to simply divide GDP from the IMF database by population growth charts from the INE or CIA factbook (population numbers are not economic indicators obviously).Flanker 01:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with the one I have now? It's in current VEB per capita. Loisel 01:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Current does not take into account inflation, that would be constant according to your graph GDP increased by 500% :). Flanker 01:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah I see. I think I have access to the "constant" numbers, I chose "current" because those numbers are more "raw", which sounds good to me, but I can see where the massaged quantities might be more informative.

Also, I see that the numbers you provide are often on a monthly frequency, which is great. If the World Bank doesn't have this monthly data, then the monthly data could be added as additional time series in each chart, hopefully validating the World Bank data. In any case, the World Bank data should not be deleted because it is a very respectable source. Loisel 01:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I was wrong in my caption. My original GDP/capita (and the current one) was in Y2K VEB, so we're ok and I didn't have to do any arithmetic or original research, the numbers were in the WDI database. Loisel 02:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Unemployment

The only detailed source is the INE which is the government's survey "branch", here is their data for the whole period (the website does not track data prior to 99) [24](tasa de desocupacion) User:Saravask created a similar graph and uploaded it, but I cannot find it. Flanker 01:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

INE is the Venezuelan government survey? Which (if I understand correctly above) gets audited by the UN and passes to the World Bank? Why does it not go further back than 1999? The WDI goes back much further. Also, why do you say INE is the only one who has it, I found it on WDI? Loisel 02:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have it? could you link to it? (my mistake I thought you were talking about poverty I saw the xls)Flanker 02:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

WDI is behind a subscription password thing. Most universities have access to it via their libraries. If you connect from a university IP, you should be able to get it. The database is here: http://devdata.worldbank.org/dataonline/ Loisel 02:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Poverty

Where can I get Poverty figures? (Preferably vetted by an NGO.) Loisel 02:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There is the article about the World Bank report, but aside from that I only know of government sources for the whole period in question, also it depends on how you define poverty, the government defines it as net income above a food basket x 2. Flanker 02:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What article? I wasn't able to find poverty figures at the World Bank. Loisel 02:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you give a link to the government poverty figures? Loisel 02:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[25] Flanker 03:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I will catch up on all of these discussions when I return from vacation, but you probably can't find poverty figures at the World Bank because Chavez has fiddled with the definition and the numbers. Here's an analysis which demonstrates some of the problems: [26] Creating graphs of government figures is original research, because no one has vetted Chavez's versions of numbers; a reliable source analysis of the numbers is needed. There are also discussions of the problems with Chavez's numbers in the sources linked from the article. Sandy 05:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect government graphs is not original research as long as they are labelled as such, you can't pick and chose what is a Reliable source and what is not, before any random economists opinion is a reliable source and now governemnt statistics are not? All other databases concur with what the government puts out, and they audit those figures. Flanker 15:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"you probably can't find poverty figures at the World Bank because Chavez has fiddled with the definition and the numbers." That's clearly not the problem. There are no pre-Chavez poverty numbers either in the WDI database. They probably simply have never collected those numbers. Loisel 16:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The world bank does track s poverty statistics we just have not found it in their database, according to the head of the WB in Venezuela they tracked it from 95-05 and noticed a 10% drop. Flanker 18:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

How does one get that data? Loisel 20:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know, I was made aware of by in panorama digital and translated by Venanalysis [27]. Flanker 21:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have scoured all the databases I know of and found no poverty data more recent than 2000. Since the World Bank apparently has some secret poverty data, I've emailed someone at the World Bank to see if we can get this data. It may not work but it's at least worth a try. If not, we will have to use some government data (perhaps INE and US data agree?) We should try to convince everyone that "The Devil's Excrement" is not a reliable source. Loisel 19:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I have located The Devil's Excrement's source database, but again it's got a sporadic set of years and I think it's the same dataset I've seen somewhere else, ending in 2002. If I never have to write Devil's Excrement again, it will be too soon.

I have also checked the World Factbook, it has no recent poverty figures.

If things stay as they are now, the only available poverty figures are the governments, and the only criticism of those poverty figures is bloggers. So that's what we're going to have to go with. I'm still waiting on the World Bank to get back to me on those figures though. Loisel 05:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

the only criticism of those poverty figures is bloggers. Not sure why you have that impression (the blog simply gives you the numbers behind the problems already discussed by several reliable sources in the article, to help you understand the scope of the problem). [28] It seems like some original research is going on here, and I'm wondering why the Economy of Venezuela is being written in the Hugo Chavez article? Sandy 23:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Keeping a record for myself of what I did. [29] does not mention poverty. [30] says there's a new poverty index in 2005. [31] was behind a subscription wall. [32] is an opinion piece. These are the anti-INE-poverty links I found in the criticism article. Loisel 02:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets be clear the only thing produced is speculation rather than hard data, a World Bank clarification would do wonders, or an UCAB's data from a reliable source. That said government figures should not be removed and evidently show another drop to 30& in 2006, and it does follow what Datanalisis and Datos reports on income increases for the lower strata. That said Chavez himself os grossly incorrect poverty did not drop 30% during his government.Flanker 18:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

To sumarize poverty is meassured by income compared to a static basket of goods of some sort, this is done to keep inflation accounted for, that said 2 sources (INE and WB) have reported a poverty drop, 1 opo pollster Datos reports accelerated increase in salary for strata E (almost doubling real income) since 2003 and another opo pollster Datanalisis reports an almost tripling of real income since 1998 for social strata E. Only the UCAB (we have to find a RS to verify the findings) has presented negative numers that contradict all of the above (mostly data after 2003). Flanker 18:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Oil stuff

What statistic on Oil would be interesting, where do we get it? (Preferably vetted by an NGO.) Oil revenue per year? Oil production per year? Loisel 02:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oil production is a highly controversial issue, from what I have seen the best production statistics are these [33] (page 18) It includes conventional, heavy oil, Orimulsion and NGLs (all part of OPECs quota). Granted it is from 2001 however it includes the most controversial period which was from 2002 till now.Flanker 03:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

How are these numbers controversial? The IEA sounds like the ultimate authority on this stuff. Loisel 05:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Venezuela's oil production numbers are controversial because many industry sources believe Venezuela is exaggerating its production, and that its production is much lower than stated. There are no reliable numbers, only guesstimates from reliable sources. Sandy 23:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Mufson, Steven. OPEC Decides Not to Cut Production Quotas: Delegates Reject Venezuela's Appeal. Washington Post (2 June 2006). "The only OPEC member pushing for cuts in output quotas was the meeting's host, Venezuela, but oil traders noted that Venezuela probably favored a cut in quotas because it has been unable to produce enough oil to meet its share of the organization's quota allotments. Morse estimated that Venezuela, OPEC's third-largest producer, was falling at least 300,000 barrels a day short of its quota because of technical problems it has had since an oil workers strike three years ago and more recent disputes with foreign operators."

• Hoyos, Carola. Opec maintains production quota. Financial Times (11 September 2006). "Several members, including Iran and Venezuela, are already finding it tough to produce as much as their quota allows."

• OPEC oil production

• Millard, Peter. Venezuela Dependent on High Oil Price. Associated Press (11 September 2006).

• Venezuelan economy to grow 5-6 pct in 2007. Reuters (12 September 2006).

• Jim Efstathiou Jr. and Stephen Voss. Crude Oil May Slide Further as OPEC Keeps Production Unchanged. Bloomberg (12 September 2006).

Sandy 00:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It does look like Venezuela, for whatever reason, is not meeting the OPEC quotas. I found your Mufson article interesting so I decided to see if I could find another source for this information, and here it is [34]. I didn't see anything about exaggerating though.

Your Mufson article mentions missing the quota by "at least 300K a day", that is presumably back in May or so. The article I found talks about 500K in 2004. Either way, the data here [35] is in remarkable agreement. So maybe that's what we should use. Loisel 03:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, this graph [36] is very interesting. It clearly shows something happened to oil production in Venezuela in 1997 and in 2002. You don't see it if you just look at overall numbers for 2001,2002,2003,2004,2005. It would be nice if we could get that graph in table form. Loisel 03:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You have to beware in knowing what the graphs say, although the last one is pretty good since it remains apples and apples, Venezuela produces almost 3 million barrels in: conventional oil + synthetic oil (both around 2.5 mmbd) + Orimulsion + NGL and condensates (500,000) all of these are part of the quota (OPEC is not stupid and Orimulsion was thought to be a way around them, a horrible waste of money), Venezuela produced in all 4 around 3,5 mmbds before Chavez. Flanker 17:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

We should find a way to create the graph Loisel found, [37] it is very detailed and the context can be added in the label. Flanker 19:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In the graphs I gave, what kinds of oil are included? Is it documented in the larger IEA oil report? Loisel 16:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes check the IEA report[38] Page 18, check the lower table for New basis: Total Venezuelan crude is the average of the graph you give, wheras Total Venezuelan oil includes Orimulsion and NGLs + condensates. Flanker 16:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm understanding it right. If the IEA and OPEC count OPEC Crude the same way, then [39] says to me that Venezuela could be producing more OPEC Crude. Is this not the case? If they don't count it the same way, then what the hell is the IEA trying to do? Loisel 17:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is quite complicated really, I guess the short answer is that Venezuela is unique AND it wanted to skirt around OPEC during previous govs but they saw through it, We are the only country that produces Orimulsion which was a way to try to sell Bitumen as coal (incurring mayor potential loses at the current price), we also produce synthetic oil From that very heavy oil, which esentially the oil producing future of Venezuela (from the faja of Orinoco). Almost all other OPEC countries produce conventional oil and some NGL+condensates. OPEC counts total oil (they want to avoid cheating) wheras the IEA counts total crude (they really don't care), so the graph you link is indeed apples and oranges.Flanker 18:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but there must be some sort of reasonable explanation why the IEA cares about "OPEC Crude", which OPEC itself does not care about. Is "OPEC Crude" more economically important, more easily refined, or something like that? Loisel 18:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Median Income for the 4 social stratus

Here is a great table about nominal income growth 98-06 from an oposition pollster (Datanalisis)[40], it is broken down like this: AB are the upper classes (around 4% of the population) saw an average 194% increase in income, C are the upper-middle classes (15% of the population) saw an average 236% rise in income, D (23%) are the middle-lower class saw a 346% increase, E (58%) are the lower classes seeing 445% increase. The CPI for this period increased by 3.66 times (266% using the WDI statistics) meaning ABC 19% of the population) had lower real income, DE is higher. This includes income and missiones but only on the recieving end. Mercal, Barrio Adentro and other social programs on the consumption side are not included. Social stratus are defined by how they live and not by income (ie quality of housing, cars etc.) Which has remained pretty static over the years. Flanker 16:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record: the WDI database has similar data for the year 2000, but nothing else. It also has the GINI index (a measure of income disparity) for 1996 (49), 1998 (50) and 2000 (44). (0) would mean perfectly equal income distribution while (100) would mean perfectly inequal income distribution. Loisel 17:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Problem with the graphs

From what I see they are mostly ok the problems I see is that they are not updated (we are n 3/4 2006) and that it is not well scaled (changes are not noticed at all), third there is no context, Chavez inaguration, oil prices, oil blue collar strike, coup etc.Flanker 02:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

2006 is the current year so the only data you could get would be projections. I'm not so sure it's worth compromising hard data with that stuff right now, if you just wait the data will come in.

As for the scale, I just changed it. It was previously based at 0 for all graphs because I've heard people yell blasphemy when they aren't (admittedly people who can't read graphs.) They are now better scaled.

I originally wanted to add a timeline with vertical lines going through all graphs with MAJOR events only. It's just a lot of work and I haven't done it. Also, I kinda like the graphs small, so it would have to be done in a way that keeps the graphs small. Also, I don't want people to use this as a platform for voicing their POV. So I would keep it at something like "1999: Chavez elected", "2002: Coup + oil strikes", "2003-2004: recall" or something like that. Loisel 03:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of figures that are not projections, such as GDP growth during the first half (is linked in the article), also unemployment figures are updated up until July. That is a reason I like the government data (updated) you can also find it in semesters as opposed to monthly. As for using the article titles as context it would miss the spike in oil prices, frankly we could certainly come to an agreement on what events are worth noting.Flanker 03:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok well, I'm a little tired now, it's past my bed time. But I'll see what more data I can find this week, I'm particularly interested in browsing the UN database when it comes back up. For adding the partial 2006 results, there must be a way of doing that without cooking the numbers, I just don't know how yet. However, I'm reticent to extrapolate a % increase for a period of 6 months to a whole year. Loisel 03:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That might be a problem but certainly there must be the first half GDP figures somewhere as opposed to just percentage growth, the UN database had some problems though it was last updated in with 2004 figures from what I recall. Flanker 03:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be useful to have the data tabulated in some new non-linked page like Hugo Chávez/stats plus some hidden comment in the main article. This will help future editors who want to update the graphs JRSP 13:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The raw XLS is here File:Venezuela Economic Indicators.xls. I just synced it with the actual PNG. Loisel 16:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oil price

It's very interesting that we are now writing Economy of Venezuela in the Hugo Chavez article, which is already too long, and without providing links to sources. At any rate, the single most important factor in Venezuela's economy is left out: the price of oil. Sandy 09:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There should be a graph somewhere, preferably Venezuela's basket, but I am not opposed to using Brent or WTI baskets. Flanker 17:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

About the gaphs in general: First, I should say I'm not done with the graphs. I intend to add more graphs, and the whole thing will be smaller. Second, I think these graphs are highly relevant to the Chavez article, because a large fraction of the existing text was basically narrating choice bits of these graphs. Third, I did reference my sources. Read the caption. When I'm done with the graphs, maybe it would be good to add ref tags and all, but it is referenced right now.

I have no problem adding the price of oil to these graphs, but is that really the best data point? I think you want the price of oil to argue that oil money is fuelling the Venezuela social programs or whatever. If that's the case, would you prefer to know how much revenue the government derives from oil? That might be in the WDI database. Loisel 04:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Pros and cons to presenting either. Venezuela's economy has long been tied to oil, a matter independent of social program funding. It's a fundamental piece of data to Venezuela's economy. On the other hand, revenue the goverment derives from oil, or spends on social programs, might be an interesting data series, but presents problems; namely, Chavez isn't forthcoming about those numbers, so you get into the apples/oranges problem. And that's without mentioning the massive, unaudited, private, discretionary fund that Chavez has, and all of those changes from prior administrations to his, so I'm not sure that you'd have apples to apples in any case, even if you could find the numbers. The price of oil can't be fudged, is easily attainable, and has long been a factor in Venezuela's economy, while figuring out how much Chavez is taking from PDVSA, and what he's doing with it, might not be easily available, and might result in apples and oranges, not to mention original research. In short, not sure how to answer your query. Sandy 05:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok well looks like you prefer the price of oil over time, I can do that. I was trying to find the oil income from WDI because I too am curious about the impact of oil income on the government budget. But whatever. Another interesting time series I'm thinking of including is debt. Chavez likes to borrow money! Loisel 15:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that will be rather tricky, should it be total debt or a percentage of GDP, external is definately the most important (and dangerous since it is paid in hard currency) but I am sure Sandy would welcome the internal debt statistic paid in Bolivars.Flanker 16:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ideologue

A user has removed a section that read

Abroad, some sources in the Western mainstream news media have reported that Chávez is a confrontational ideologue.

The source actually states;

:"and he is the ideologue who pushes an anti-imperialist, socialist agenda."

So "confrontational" is not in the source. And "ideolgue who pushes an anti-imperialist, socialist agenda" is not really a criticism. So I believe the user is correct to remove that statement. I've reinstated it for now for other users to consider.--Zleitzen 19:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree: the statement should be removed. To regard the statement as criticism is to imply that being an ideologue is bad. "Confrontational", at the least, must be removed immediately according to WP:BLP (As I was writing this post, I took the liberty to remove the statement. I don't expect any controversy.) -- WGee 01:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for reinstating it for consideration, Zleitzen: I'm sorry I didn't get to it before it was deleted, but I didn't think it was a particularly compelling thought anyway. It provides yet another example of how we must strictly quote sources verbatim, or the article will be cleansed of even logical and well-known criticism. The original phrase was in Saravask's version, and sourced by him, when citation requirements weren't as strict. The Washington Post used ideologue, while the confrontational part most likely came from the plethora of sources from when Chavez made his derogatory comments about Bush and other world leaders. They were most likely combined to one sentence, since there is NO doubt about his confrontational style. Now, if we use multiple sources, Mateo criticizes it as overkill. But we can't paraphrase or summarize or combine well-sourced thoughts here: no, we have to quote directly and verbatim, as some editors would rather delete than take the time to source well-known content. I'll find a better quote to replace Saravask's content anyway, but this is an example of how absurd the attempts are to delete any negative content from this article. Sandy 09:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The Washington Post describes Chavez's "confrontational, leftist brand of politics" here. [41] Perhaps the statement could go in sourced to those two Post statements as a summary sentence in that section before the criticism (not actually reading as criticism itself)? I know it's pedantic but I think the level of detail applied to each point is helpful in the long run in stabilising the article. --Zleitzen 12:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It's usually helpful, and is certainly so with new text, but as we deal with Saravask's older, unreferenced or underreferenced text (which was usually not pulled from thin air), it's not helpful when statements in the article that could be referenced are deconstructed. Imagine if I applied the same yardstick to the entire article. At any rate, it does provide an example of why newer text is almost always verbatim, verbose, and not summarized or paraphrased (which is not ideal). As to whether new text should go in Criticism or elsewhere, if the article were written and balanced correctly, there wouldn't be a Criticism section: there would just be both pro and con reliably-sourced information, interwoven throughout the article. Sandy 14:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I like to consider it in terms of protecting an article. Over paraphrasing can too easily be removed by users as ad hominem, unsourced or speculative. And will be eventually. Ideally we'd have very tight summary writing relating as directly to sources as possible. The best of both worlds! I'd like to think of it as a gradual refining process, the verbose statements can be knocked into shape over time. Providing no one comes along and reverts the whole lot page in one foul swoop ;) (Just kidding guys)--Zleitzen 14:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly it is common knowledge to the politically savvy that Chavez is confrontational, but that is irrelevant. WP:BLP applies to all negative statements, even the well known ones. If a negative statement is properly sourced, it can be inserted; until then, it must not exist on Wikipedia. By the way, the harsh rhetoric is not needed, Sandy; this is a wiki, and one can easily insert deleted information once one finds a source for it.

Although Sandy insinuates otherwise, my actions do not mean that I am opposed to paraphrasing; rather, I am actively for it, because I do not approve of extensive use of quotations in an encyclopedic article. The problem is that some users have, through the process of paraphrasing, introduced their point of view into the article, which has led some to demand that sources be quoted verbatim. That is a good way to ensure that sources are properly cited, but it is not the norm for an encyclopedia.

-- WGee 02:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing bias and POV in Chavez articles

Having a look at how Encyclopedia Britannica treats the topic (most recent, 2005 entry): I can't quote too much, or it would be a copyright vio, so I will quote exactly the first five sentences:

Year in Review 2005: biography Chávez, Hugo

Venezuelan Pres. Hugo Chávez made headlines throughout 2005 with his escalating anti-American rhetoric and increased efforts to implement “21st-century socialism.” Relations with the U.S., already contentious, rapidly worsened amid his repeated threats to end oil sales to the U.S., Venezuela's main customer, and his purchases of arms and other military equipment, acquisitions he claimed were necessary to defend Venezuela from the “imperialistic power.” Chávez's allegation that the U.S. administration of Pres. George W. Bush was plotting his assassination garnered much attention in August when Pat Robertson, an influential American television evangelist, said that the U.S. should “take him out.” Although the White House dismissed the statement, it viewed the firebrand leader as a destabilizing presence in South America and pursued a policy of containment. Tensions continued in November at the Summit of Americas in Argentina, where Chávez led protests against Bush (”Mr. Danger”) and derided a U.S.-backed free-trade agreement.

So, while we have an incomplete, outdated, bloated, and highly-biased article, with a Criticism POV fork, we quibble over minor sentences, grow the article further, but editors here refuse to allow for balance to be brought to the article, or for biased sources to be removed, or for it to be updated to reflect current events, or for the Criticism and main articles to be merged and summarized to attain NPOV. A major rewrite/update is needed, and instead the focus here is on deleting any content unfavorable to Chavez, sentence by sentence, using any and all excuses, while EB simply acknowledges the factual reality and deals with it briefly and succinctly. It is not surprising that all efforts to NPOV this article are blocked, since it is so highly biased in favor of Chavez - a status quo apparently preferred by some editors here. The example above is classic: we can't even use the relatively mild term "confrontational ideologue", which is well backed by reliable sources. Sandy 19:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally think Britanica did a horrible job, the whole thing quoted was so US centric you would be left wondering if Chavez was a US citizen. Of course such a thing would be viewed negatively since both countries are verbally hostile to each other. Again I disagree with the pro-POV claim, but I do wonder is just how would you remove biased sources (on both sides) and how would your merge look. Perhaps start a sandbox. Flanker 19:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course you think it's horrible (how could I guess?): if your main information source is Venezuelanalysis, you wouldn't know that this concisely summarizes what most reliable sources were reporting in 2005. And, you can't comment on "the whole thing", since I couldn't quote the whole thing for copyright reasons. You already know what my proposed merge would look like: we were almost done at the beginning of July, and were close to removing the POV tag, after much work on my part - work I'm not likely to re-invest time in until there is consensus here to NPOV the article, working together rather than obstructing all NPOV attempts. Sandy 19:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Venanalysis is not my main information source, actually it is my source of last resort if I do not see it documented elsewhere, as for sandboxing it should be what consensus looks like IMHO, I personally think it is better that way than a carte blanche. I am still stuck in mine. Flanker 19:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The Britannica quotation isn't that bad, although obviously I can't speak for the rest of that article. It's too US-centric, yes, but that's not a shooting offense, and neither is the use of scare quotes. It manages to present in a few lines a lot of the sparring we witnessed in 2005 between the US and Venezuela. Now if it were to label Chavez a dictator and diss the INE by citing the Devil's E or some neocon outfit, I would disagree. But it's pretty fine as it is. Does it say anything useful on poverty? Loisel 02:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't want to get into copyright trouble by quoting too much, but perhaps I should have grabbed the middle of the article instead of the beginning. This is the 2005 summary, and I don't think it's too US-centric, since that was the focus of Chavez's policies that year: it would be interesting to see other years, although I'm not sure where to get them. For example, 2006 would theoretically highlight much different issues: the Russian arms deals, the bid for UN Security Council, drawing near to Iraq etc. (I wouldn't expect to see anything about specific on the poverty issue, because I think - not sure - that Chavez's fiddling with the numbers became more known after this would have been published.) What it does say on poverty is that "his efforts to end poverty" were popular. It refers to his "socialist revolution", refers to MVR as "left-wing", that his "detractors" view him as a "populist demagogue", mentions his growing power ... I shouldn't quote more or I'll be beyond Fair Use. Anyway, the idea is that it gives a sample of how it is perfectly possible to write a concise article that weaves pros and cons into the text. The example above (confrontational ideologue) is a clear one as to why we have to specifically and explicitly include direct quotes so they won't be deleted (referring to WGee's accusation below). Multiple cites use "confrontational", others use "ideologue", but for us to use that simple phrase, which goes no where near violating BLP since it's clearly not libelous in the case of Chavez, we have to overload the text with either direct quotes or multiple citations, because of misinterpretation and abuse of the BLP policy here. Again, what would happen if I deleted all of Saravask's prior unreferenced text, poorly referenced text, or text referenced to non-reliable sources? There wouldn't be much of the article left. But as long as the editing policy here forces us to use specific and over-cited sources, that is what we must do. "Speculative news reports?" I think not. Sandy 02:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If you say that someone is "confrontational", provide a source immediately thereafter; it's a rather simple concept that is (supposed to be) applied to all articles. If you have to cite a couple of sources, then do it; having an additional citation next to a statement isn't a big deal stylistically. None of what Saravask wrote is negative, so the same rules do not apply.

I didn't say Chavez was confrontational: Saravask's December 2005 version -- which you reverted to -- did. Since it is clearly not the kind of statement that could lead to a libel lawsuit by Chavez, you might have fact tagged it or discussed it on talk page, as Zleitzen did. I'm wondering if we are going to debate this article ad nauseum, or if we are ever just going to just get busy and fix the article, as we were doing last July? I think that three months is an awfully long time to be stalled in discussing, at times, one phrase or sentence when the entire article needs such major work. Sandy 02:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

How can you argue that the 2006 section is not speculative? Just read it:

The BBC says that Chavez "has made no secret of the fact that he is in favour of amending the constitution so that he can run again for president in 2012." In spite of a presidential term limit of 12 years, according to The Economist, Chávez often suggests that he will remain in power for 25 years, a claim he denies as a misinterpretation of his intent. Chávez has said that if the opposition boycotts the 2006 Venezuelan presidential election he "might sign a decree calling for a popular referendum - Do you agree that Chavez should run for a third term in 2013?” He is campaigning for re-election in December.

In 2006 Chávez announced Venezuela's bid to win a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council; Washington officials are encouraging Latin American and Caribbean nations to vote instead for Guatemala. Analysts quoted by Forbes Magazine say that Chávez will offer to supply 20% of China's crude oil needs if Beijing backs Venezuela's bid to join the UN Security Council. In Chile, the press is concerned that Venezuelan grants for flood aid might affect the government's decision about which country to support for admission to the UN Security Council.

In accordance with his foreign policy trends, Chávez has visited several countries in Latin America, as well as Portugal, Belarus, Russia, Qatar, Syria, Iran, Vietnam, Mali and Benin. At the request of Gambian President Yahya Jammeh, Chávez also attended the 2006 summit of the African Union in Banjul. Also he visited the People's Republic of China and Malaysia.

-- WGee 02:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly I would not have added some of those speculative portions added by Flanker, but I didn't notice you objecting when he added them. They seemed to me to contain a lot of weasle words, to cover Chavez's intent, which he himself has recently made abundantly clear: and, again, if the person inserting the comments didn't use the exact words used in the sources (inlcuding the "mights" and "ifs"), someone here would likely delete them per BLP. And, you might recall that Mateo complained about overciting.

It is equally strange that one part of EB's article should be described as "US centric", when Chavez himself has defined his politics, foreign policy, and goals as anti-US, so it's natural that the 2005 EB entry would focus on the issues with the US. It is silly that Wiki's article continues to ignore the reality that is in the daily press, while EB dealt with it simply in one paragraph. That is what we should be aiming for, and it shouldn't take a string of citations to paraphrase and reference what is in multiple daily news reports. So, editors here are stuck between using exact quotes, and overciting, or having anything that is summarized or paraphrased deleted, even when backed by multiple sources. It begins to appear that the debate and the argument over technicalities is taking precedence over just doing the work. Is that because the article is currently so highly POV that the status quo is preferred ?

We need to get this article fixed: it's ridiculous that it has been tagged as long as it has, and efforts to update, summarize, paraphrase more succinctly, and merge the content have not been undertaken. Are you interested in merging, summarizing, reducing the size, NPOVing, updating, and getting the necessary work done on the article, or should we discuss "confrontational ideologue" - a term introduced in the Dec 10 version/revert, and not an important concept - further? Sandy 02:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The Chavez article should not be US centric, it should not even exceed the 5% threshold. Flanker 18:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This exerpt is something to aspire to: it summarizes both sides of the debate without resorting to very specific examples and does so in a neutral manner. Although you declare your support for it, Sandy, you have been very active in contributing speculative news reports and very specific claims. -- WGee 02:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well you put an article you thought was better, here is mine fromglobalsecurity.org (a defense think tank) Factual, concise, balanced and does not devolve into constant accusations [42] Flanker 23:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems a fine article, all considered. It's a decent model, along with the EB, although I believe both are too US-centric. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

2006 Current needs to be revamped

We cannot just have a series of tiny, unrelated paragraphs lumped together to form one section; there should be one subsection for each event, similar to the Tony Blair article. If it is not possible to write a whole subsection on a particular event, then the event is nothing more than a ratings-magnet and should not be mentioned. If there are no objections, I'd like to move the section to the talk page and begin work on a proper section: something more than a collection of media headlines. -- WGee 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree but we may have to wait until the article stabilizes. Flanker 21:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

there should be one subsection for each event, No, the article is currently organized as a timeline, with timeline sections defined according to broad themes. Broad themes also apply to 2006, with some clear policies and trends. There's no reason to handle 2006 any differently from other time periods: it needs to be summarized as other periods are. Each event doesn't need a section. The year has a theme, even though Flanker may be reluctant to call a spade a spade. Sandy 01:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced content

In a speech at the United Nations Assembly in New York on September 20, 2006, Chavez blasted the United States administration and called U.S President George W. Bush "The Devil" while criticizing its system as "worthless". While holding up a copy of Hegemony or Survival by Noam Chomsky, he also attack the country saying that the U.S was trying to dominate the whole world and quote it as "the American Empire". The senior US officals to the UN boycotted Chavez's speech, along with those of his iranian counterpart.

During the same speech he attack the Security Council's and its five permanent members of being "anti-democratic". He also mentioned about a veto cast by U.S Ambassador to the U.N John Bolton during the war against Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Confused about why you posted this here: there are dozens of news references today for that content, and anyone can easily add the ref - take your pick. I suggest we wait until the hubbub and excitement from today dies down, and then clean up and reference accurate material, while staying on top of deleting the vandalism, POV, and blatantly wrong insertions. Sandy 01:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course I know that it's true—that's why I didn't outrightly delete it. But until it is actually sourced (which should be an easy task, as you say), it should not be included in the article. I'd love to do it myself, but I'm very busy with my studies, and referencing all that would be quite tedious. -- WGee 02:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of my proposition above? Would you care to assist with something like that, or are you content with the current state of the section? -- WGee 02:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

We should wait for the dust to settle, and add something concise and referenced. What proposition? (Sorry, I've also been busy ... ??? ) Sandy 02:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the prop at the top of this section? Well, I'm pretty sure that's what I've been suggesting for months :-) We need to write 2006 from the point of view of the items Chavez has emphasized in 2006; examples, the UN Sec council seat, the Iran/anti-US push, the situation in Mexico, elections, etc. Right now, they aren't woven into the context of his 2006 policy objectives, which although Flanker won't admit it, are netamente anti-US. Sandy 03:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

here's the reference [43]. I've put this for the whole speech when I first started those paragraphs. Did it vanished, since it was said to be NOT SOURCED?--JForget 02:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No, looks it was still there before the transfer of the section here. The what was reference 75 was for all what i've added, alhough there have been edits by other members after that.--JForget 03:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, content must be sourced, and it needs to be NPOV'd a bit. You might try proposed rewording here on this page. Sandy 03:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The truth about Chavez

Apparently the thought police did not like my additions to this article. Chavez calling Bush The Devil, and saying the USA will be destroyed are very unchristian-like statements. They are factual, and they were removed. Chavez also supports terrorism in Columbia. Chavez has commited genocide against those opposed to him, which lead to his people revolting and trying to overthorw him. I see that Wikipedia is not interested in these facts and delete them, because they are pro-Chavez and not neutral at all. Loke Laufeyiarson 00:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Because your contributions were neither verifiable nor written from a neutral point of view, they had to be removed from the article. Also, please note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so comments such as the one above are not welcome here. -- WGee 01:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't blame the thought police, that's just intellectual laziness. You need sources for additions like that. Also, try to keep a neutral point of view in the edits. If you can source the quotations in a reliable source, though, I'm sure someone else can rewrite them for you in NPOV if needed. If you think you can handle that, put them back in with sources; otherwise, there's no shame in posting on the talk page and letting someone else put into 'encyclopedia' style.

And please, please, make sure the source is reliable. I hate seeing ill-sources statements. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I've been called pro-Chavez because I deleted unreferenced content! That's a new one. Sandy 01:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It is true that Chavez refered to President Bush as the devil. He said something like the devil was with us. Seems a little undiplomatic to me. Besides stifling dissent against him I haven't heard any of Loke's claims repeated elsewhere. Sound and Fury 06:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

He also called himself David and the USA Goliath, which meant he was going to kill or destroy the USA. Am I the only one listening to his speeches? Yes they are cited. If someone can kindly rewrite it so the thought police won't delete them, please do so. Due to psychophobia the thought police cannot trust me and discriminate against me. Yes Chavez was undiplomatic and unchristian in his statements at the UN and the press conference. I cited those, but they were deleted. I thought they were NPOV, but the thought police said they were not. When he says he will kill Goliath, it means genocide of the US people as well, the whole USA. Loke Laufeyiarson 14:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop referring to us as the "thought police". You are free to think whatsoever you want, but you are not allowed to skew an article according to your thoughts. Comment on the content, not the contributors. -- WGee 03:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree about a pro-Chavez bent on this page. First we should describe Chavez as a dictator who stifles dissent, second I see no problem saying he associates with Rouge nations like Cuba, Iran and North Korea. This is the equivilent of saying Hitler was a mass murderer or that Ghandi was a pacificest: established facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicKirin (talk • contribs) 11:42, 1 October 2006 UTC

Yes, the page is hopelessly POV and pro-Chávez, and that is why the tag is there. Your help in addressing the problems would be welcome, but your talk page indicates that you might benefit from learning more about Wiki policies so that your editing can be more effective. Text must be sourced to reliable sources, and be written in a neutral fashion. If you violate those policies, your contributions won't ultimately be helpful. The text about Chavez's alliances has not yet been written, and few of the regular editors here are likely to write it or allow it if it's not very well sourced. If you want it included, I suggest doing the work to do it right, writing it well, from high quality sources. Sandy 15:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, please remember to sign your entries with four tildes ( ~~~~ ). Sandy 15:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Speech to the UN

Did anyone else hear him use the term "inshallah" at the end of his speech? I hear it in each replay, but the translator does not translate it, most likely since it isn't a Spanish word. I find it quite strange for the Venezuelan head of state to use an Arabic term. Anyone else think so? Cereal Killer 05:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, unless a reliable source mentions and discusses it, there's nothing to report. Sandy 13:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Bolivarianism?

Can someone explain via the article or otherwise exactly why Chavez compares himself to Simon Bolivar? Bolivar, according the wiki article on him was an ardent free-market Adam Smith disciple, also somewhat Jeffersonian, with some pro-U.S. leanings, granted times have changed, but ideologically, the two men appear polar opposites...

Because he knows it's good PR. Sandy 19:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps there is original research on that article :) will have to check it out. Bolivar was really known intelectually for his Latin American integration initiatives. His economic theories never gained much traction.Flanker 21:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

There are non-registered users abusing of this article's edition, putting lines like "Corrupt", "Communist", etc, which is different from reality.

I'm requesting this article to be edited by registered members only to avoid vandalism (User's IP: 82.113.6.19)

(Jale86 21:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC))

The vandalism is not to a level which we can't handle, or requiring semi-protection. After everyone finishes adding their OR, POV, and unsourced edits to multiple sections, we can easily clean it up. Sandy 21:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the Chavez article, should be deleted when we rewrite and consolidate, perhaps in the Chomsky article? "One day after Chavez's speech, Chomsky's book rose to the No. 3 bestseller at online bookseller Amazon.com. " Sandy 00:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Amazon.com

Amazon.com rankings have been determined as unsuitable for incluson in other articles, so I removed a recently-added mention. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I had just mentioned it above: really not a fit for this article. Sandy 01:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I was planning on adding it to the book article (it is #1 now) why are Amazon rankings unreliable? Flanker 15:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

53rd pres

Fun. The bogus, invented number 53, based on original research and US-centric counting of non-existing presidential succession, which needs to be cleansed from Wiki, is now in the infobox. Sandy 01:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I just put it in there (as a newcomer to the article cleaning up the infobox). That's what I saw in the article. Feel free to change it as you see fit. Cheers, Jpe|ob 01:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No, there's too many important reverts needed considering the headlines: I'll leave clean up til later. It's always helpful if newcomers not make structural changes without knowing the history: we've had long discussions on several other articles about the need to completely remove the invalid 53 number, and just haven't gotten around to doing it. It would be great if you'd undo your changes yourself. Thanks, Sandy 01:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Very sorry for causing you undue stress! is "February 2, 1999 (excepting coup attempt of April 12-13 2002)" in infobox bad as well? Jpe|ob 01:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked: all of your changes are problematic and should be rolled back. They've been established, and based on a fragile consensus, for a long time. JRSP, Anagnorisis, and myself have discussed the beginnings of a proposal to fix List of Presidents of Venezuela (which includes one editor's counting and accounting of presidential succession, based on original research and US-centric succession notions), but it all got put off because, at least in my case, I was too busy to take on such a big change affecting so many articles. The types of edits you just made caused another editor to be blocked on another article: not the sort of thing we should be taking on in the midst of vandalism and new editors with the UN news. You might help us with some ideas for sorting that out, once the dust of the UN speech settles. Sandy 01:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I just reverted it back to how it was. I'd be happy to take a part in civil discussions as to how to improve the article. Cheers, Jpe|ob 01:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jpeob - we need to gather a lot of people and we have a lot of work to do to fix the problem with the List, as well as how to deal with a number of "irregular" situations in Venezuela's succession history, similar and different to the Carmona situation. When we all get together to work on it, we'll keep you in the loop. Sandy 01:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Vast detailing of "Controversy"

I note that this page now contains a vast amount of detail on Chavez's speech to the UN. Is this necessary? Sure, it deserves a mention. I know Chavez's rather typical demagogic comments just happen to be about a US leader, but does that mean it has the same resonance to the rest of us? What I'm asking is, do non-Americans get a say as to what they find important in an article? Or are we constantly "sleeping with the elephant" and at the mercy of the whims and twitches of what a foreign media finds important. The growing list of US politicians comments on this page means nothing to me at all. I'm here to learn about a Venezuelan President. I went through this when Castro's stomach exploded, and armies of editors rushed in to add full 10 line quotes from obscure US politicians, and endless "views from Washington" to the detriment of what I considered to be more important actual facts about Cuba. Does anyone else share this view, or am I all alone talking to myself? --Zleitzen 14:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's all necessary (some is), and besides that, it's included in two places and with numerous, unnecessary headings. But, since it's in the headlines right now, it's probably futile to attempt to clean it up now: new editors will just continue to add it. I suggest we just stay on top of it until the news dies down, and then incorporate what is needed, cleaning it up, summarizing, removing the headlines, and putting it all in one place (2006 events). Also, I don't think the claims that the over-emphasis on US, or that it's US centric, are valid, since that is precisely how Chavez has defined his foreign policy issues this year. It's not the press or the article that is defining it as a US-centric issue: it's Chavez. Sandy 14:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should fix it once the floods stops, hopefully many of the new editors can remain afterwards. Flanker 15:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed the new material should be left until the feeding frenzy has died down and subsequently reshaped with some perspective on the matter. Those were just my thoughts about wikipedia in general, Sandy. But one should note that the Bush article makes no reference to his denouncments of an "axis of evil" and other similar biblical rhetoric. I remember Bush giving a speech about Cuba in Florida, saying he was in a "fight against evil" going on to claim wildly that "Cuba promotes child sex tourism". Is that in the Bush article? Surely such a bizarre verbal attack on another nation would warrant a mention, judging by the standards of this Chavez article? The reason it isn't is because such comments didn't get the US media in a huff, a US politician attributing "evil" to other nations is deemed uncontroversial - and thus no one batted an eyelid. If it is the other way round it becomes a "controversy". --Zleitzen 16:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Chavez has really made the US the core of his foreign policy, so I don't think there's anything wrong with the forcus on US relations in the article. I can't speak directly for the Bush article (I've never read it, let alone edited it), but I have two comments. First, whatever comments Bush made about Cuba are incedental compared to Chavez's speeches about the US. Bush has not made Cuba a major part of his policy. Second, Bush has made the "Axis of Evil" (anti-Iran, anti-DPRK, anti-Iraq) a large part of his policy -- some would go so far as to say a major part, although I would argue the near-neglect of the DPRK lessens that. As a result, the "Axis of Evil" speech and commentary on same should be a part of the Bush article, just like the anti-US/anti-Bush rhetoric from Chavez should be a part of the article. While I would have no offhand objections to the Cuba comments Bush made being added to his article, that would be of secondary importance at best.

In short, I feel that since Chavez's speech is in line with his core policy, it is appropriate for inclusion in the article -- though to what extent I'm not sure. If Chavez were to give a speech tomorrow calling Merkel "el Diablo" it might not demand inclusion, but only because relations with Germany have not been a major part of Chavez's foreign relations policy. It would probably be relegated to a section like "other foreign policy stuff". (Of course if Chavez continued to give such speeches, it would be appropriate to give Venezualan-German relations its own section, or even several sections, if it were that major of an issue.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a non-US media article from today summarizing Chavez's anti-US rhetoric, as part of his overall campaign to gain the UN Sec Council seat. I'm going to again re-list, briefly, all the sources in one place, so we'll have whatever we need when it's time to clean up and summarize. Sandy 16:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The anti-US rhetoric, as part of an overall campaign to gain the UN Sec Council seat is interesting Sandy, and certainly worth exploring. I disagree with CRGreathouse on whether Bush's rhetoric about Cuba is incidental, given that an $80 million budget has been given to create various commissions on Cuba and so on. That such lavish attention is deemed incidental is pretty much what I'm inferring here, an imbalance of perspective. An elephant trampling on an ant is incidental to the elephant - but not to the ant! Anyway all this talk is irrelevant and I'll shut up now! Thanks.--Zleitzen 16:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem :-) When we do clean it up, we need to put it into context with the entire UN Sec Council thing, and all of his travel/spending this year to help him land the seat. Sandy 17:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

UN Speech sources

Just so we'll have them all in one place:

• Hudson, Saul. Reuters. Venezuelan Chavez wants to be world's anti-US voice. Scotsman.com (22 September 2006).
• Chavez: Bush 'devil;' U.S. 'on the way down'. CNN (20 September 2006).
• Lynch, Colum. Chavez savages Bush in speech: Diplomats at U.N. applaud his attack on U.S. policy. San Francisco Chronicle (21 September 2006).
• Padgett, Tim. The Devil and Hugo Chavez. Time Magazine (20 September 2006).
• James, Ian. Associated Press. Chavez launches Bush broadside at U.N. Houston Chronicle (21 September 2006).
• Chavez Catches Hell For 'Devil' Slam: Democrats Take A Break From Criticizing President Bush To Defend Him. CBS News (21 September 2006)
• Democrats warn Chavez: Don't bash Bush. CNN (21 September 2006)
• James, Ian. Chavez Vows to Discount Oil for Poor. Houston Chronicle (21 September 2006).
• Transcript: Hugo Chavez Delivers Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly . Fox News (21 September 2006).
• Chavez Repeats 'Devil' Comment at Harlem Event. Fox News (21 September 2006).
• Associated Press Chavez Calls Bush ‘The Devil’. New York Times (20 September 2006).
• CONG. RANGEL CONDEMNS CHAVEZ'S ATTACK ON BUSH. Accessed 21 September 2006.
• Leading Bush critic at home calls Chavez a "thug". Reuters (21 September 2006)
• New York reacts: calls Chavez “oil pimp” and UN “cheap bordello”. MercoSur. Accessed 21 September 2006.
• James, Ian. Associated Press. Democrats, Republicans criticize Chavez. Houston Chronicle (22 September 2006).

Sandy 17:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Oil deal

• Adams, Glenn. Maine Repubs Say No to Chavez Oil Deal. Houston Chronicle (21 September 2006).
• Venezuela oil pimp can have UN. New York Daily News (21 September 2006).
  • The above is an editorial - need to deal with that in the article, if we keep content, find a better source.
• Adams, David. Is oil offer kind or cunning? St. Petersburg Times (24 November 2005).

Sandy 17:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Rummors of '08

After his comments on the floor of the UN, many have suggested Hugo Chavez is running for the DNC nomination for the 2008 presidential election. Mantion 06:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Rumours are not to be propagated on Wikipedia. -- WGee 16:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Saul Landau

Reviewing this page again, I spotted an opinion about the Carlos Andrés Pérez administration sourced to what appears to be a piece by Saul Landau. Now in my opinion, Saul Landau is not the most reliable source on Latin American subjects, (I've stated this about Landau on other pages in the past) I reckon if I dug around a bit we could find where he has muddled various pieces of information - taken vague truths at face value and generally carried a very skewered view of events. Is it possible that we could find another source that reviews the Perez years - even if it says the same thing as Landau? Any thoughts?--Zleitzen 00:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

A cluestick for the passage in question would help :-)) Sandy 00:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the ref - it may seem inconsequential but the sight of Landau in the list of citations gets my goat.--Zleitzen 00:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good - the text is accurate, but the Saul Landau source was Venezuelanalysis, which is not a reliable source anyway - glad you lessened the long list of references that eventually need to be fixed. Sandy 00:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Recall vote

JRSP, I don't understand this edit: there may have been one exit poll (not certain of that), but there are several other studies, reports, and reasons for the fraud claims. I thought the statement covered them all, not just the poll ?? Sandy 00:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the only documents are the Súmate exit poll and and the Súmate-comissioned and not peer reviewed Hausmann tech report JRSP 01:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Liberal use of the word "Sumate" doesn't give more weight to your answer.  :-) There are the numerous reliably-sourced accounts of all of the other problems, the reasons impartial observers refused to participate, the problems with the (non-) audit, etc. In other words, the current wording isn't comprehensive - there was more than one basis for the fraud claim. I do agree the word "true" was POV. Sandy 01:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

And many documents don't give more weight to the fraud claim. The fact is that all those documents couldn't even convince the US DoS. "Documents" is a weasel word as it does not give any clue of their plausibility JRSP 01:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Help requested...

I found a lot of information about Chavez that was incorrectly saved in Template space. I merely moved it to main space, but this solution is stopgap. I'm putting a note here to avoid placing three or four unattractive "Merge from" templates atop this page. I am requesting help from anyone who is a dedicated editor of this page:

1. I didn't find anything else in Please compare these article sections to the relevant sections in the current article:

• ChavezLinks
• ChavezNotes
• ChavezArticles

1. If there is info in those that needs to be merged here, please do so, then do the deletion requests described below. If the information in those stubs is not useful, then go straight to the next step (deletion).
2. Put in requests for deletion.
   1. Put in AfD requests for those articles/stubs/sections/ whatever they are to be deleted...
   2. Also put in requests for the REDIRECTS in TEMPLATE space to be deleted:

• Template:ChavezLinks
• Template:ChavezNotes
• Template:ChavezArticles

Meanwhile, I will put a note on the talk page of the relevant contributor. Thanks --Ling.Nut 15:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

They should all be deleted, the info is already incorporated and updated where needed, it all appears to be info temporarily used when Saravask created the entire series of Chavez info on Wiki. Much of the info is outdated, relies on non-reliable sources, and contains extensive POV. I've added prod tags to all, as they were only temporary, no longer needed. Sandy 15:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy, I'd never seen that tag before. I'll remember it. Would you like to check some others? I don't know if this exhausts the list of what's out there:

1. Template:ChavezHonors
2. Template:ChavezCategories
3. Template:ChavezReferences

Thanks --Ling.Nut 19:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

--Ling.Nut 19:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

They're all outdated, and reflect content that has been used and updated in various articles: I know how to prod articles, but I don't know how to prod templates. Sandy 19:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Size of march

JRSP, what is your point here? No one credibly believes the march was less than hundreds of thousands, as demonstrated by the pictures. (For the uninitiated, we're talking about a multiple lane freeway as far as the eye can see.) What is your point in reverting a number which I can just go and cite to any other number of sources? Your revert doesn't appear to be in good faith: anyone familiar with Venezuela's history knows that there are multiple sources, and there is no reason to object to the DOS. I've seen Metropolitan Police estimates, and since I did the work of finding a RELIABLE source once already, I'll let someone else look for more sources for now: in the meantime, I find it hard to understand this as a good faith revert. Sandy 00:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks please, AGF, I just changed an unsourced figure for a sourced one. Estimating by pictures is original research, we must work with reliable sources JRSP 00:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There was/is no personal attack: you reverted sourced data, which is further validated by your picture. Please reinsert. You and every Venezuelan knows the number is true, and that I can find many sources. Sandy 00:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It was initially unsourced [44][45]. When you reverted this, you provided a source that, in my opinion, in more biased than the one I provided. Anyway, I welcome a discussion based on reliable sources, not on original research. BTW, beware of the Policia Metropolitana figures as they were a party of the events. JRSP 00:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

JRSP, where was there original research? Sandy 01:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It certainly looked more like 500,000. "Hundreds of thousands" with a footnote explaining the various sourced figures (from the BBC upwards) would be good in my view.--Zleitzen 00:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the BBC in English knows how to count better than the Spanish version: "Venezuela's president said opposition leaders had led hundreds of thousands of marchers to the presidential palace looking for deaths to justify the coup against him." [46] Sandy 01:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[multiple edit conflicts] Yes, it was initially unsourced, as is most of Saravask's content. I've asked before if I, too, should start erasing facts well known to all of us just because Saravask never cited them. How many reliable sources do you want to substantiate what is apparent in pictures and everyone knows to be fact ?

1. Wilson, Scott. Another Political Confrontation Looming in Venezuela; Opposition to Chavez Seen Hardening Despite President's Moves Since Coup. The Washington Post. (Jul 6, 2002), pg. A.12. "On April 11, a march by hundreds of thousands of anti-Chavez protesters ended with gunfire in the streets outside Miraflores, the presidential palace in downtown Caracas. When the smoke cleared, 18 people were dead and Chavez had been ousted by a handful of senior military officers."
2. U.S. Department of State. Venezuela: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2002. Accessed 1 October 2006. "In April the country experienced a temporary alteration of constitutional order. When an estimated 400,000 to 600,000 persons participated in a march in downtown Caracas to demand President Chavez’s resignation, gunfire broke out, resulting in as many as 18 deaths and more than 100 injuries, with dead and injured on both sides. Military officers took President Chavez into custody, and opposition business leader Pedro Carmona proclaimed himself as interim president. On April 14, troops loyal to Chavez returned him to power." Shall I keep going?
3. Wilson, Scott. Carter Mediation Bid Fails to Spur Venezuelan Dialogue. The Washington Post. (Jul 10, 2002). pg. A.11 . "Political passions culminated April 11, when a march by hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans ended in a burst of gunfire, leaving 18 people dead. Ensuing riots left another 60 people dead, mostly in the poorest neighborhoods of Caracas. Within hours of the shootings, a group of senior military officers long opposed to Chavez's leftist politics forced him from power. They replaced him with a provisional government led by the leader of Venezuela's largest business group."
4. Thompson, Ginger. As Fears Linger, Venezuelans Press for Truth About Killings During Chavez Protests. New York Times. (Apr 27, 2002). pg. A.10. "On the day power in Venezuela briefly changed hands, Mohamad Yusef Merhi and his 18-year-old son joined hundreds of thousands of protesters in an unauthorized march across the capital to demand the resignation of President Hugo Chavez. Euphoria moved the sea of unarmed people past police officers warning of danger, and Mr. Merhi's son, a high school senior, got swept up in the chanting: Not a single step back. But soon after, gunfire from a bridge and scattered rooftops burst through the bravado, setting off a political crisis and leaving 17 Venezuelans dying in the streets. Among them was Mr. Merhi's son, Jesus Espinoza, whose skull was shattered by a bullet that slammed through the top of his head." Sandy 00:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's another one, this time from the Guardian By Thursday hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans were marching against the president through the streets of Caracas.

[47]--Zleitzen 01:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Lifsher, Marc. Venezuela Remains Deeply Divided --- President's Supporters And Critics Face Off; Few Try to Bridge the Gap. Wall Street Journal. (May 13, 2002). pg. A.15. "The Human Rights Commission of the Organization of American States, whose members visited Venezuela last week, called the situation disheartening. Both groups, said commission chairman Juan Mendez, are clinging to contradictory versions of who killed 17 people and wounded about 100 others during an April 11 march by at least 300,000 demonstrators on Mr. Chavez's presidential palace."

Pick your source, JRSP, and please change the ten back to hundred. You're welcome to leave the picture gallery, which is instructive. Sandy 01:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, if the Guardian and the US Dept of State are singing from the same hymnsheet then there is no real dispute here. I've arranged the sources so they are both accessible alongside the Beeb piece, hopefully this is satisfactory.--Zleitzen 01:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

BBC says the same - see above. I can't fathom why JRSP found one clearly inaccurate source to support something that most Venezuelans saw with their own eyes. Thanks, Zleitzen. Sandy 01:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not what I saw with my own eyes, but what sources say, I'm not an expert in estimating march sizes anyway. The Guardian is a RS the "hundred" figure is better supported now. JRSP 01:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, your comments toward JRSP are quite harsh. There's no need to be uncivil, though, because the result of JRSP's objections is a more reliable article. Also, please remember to assume good faith: don't say that JRSP's revert "doesn't appear to be in good faith." -- WGee 23:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

POV edit

A user named Tannim is now continuing the work of banned user MagicKirin by repeatedly entering this rather unenlightened edit to the page and reverting anyone who changes this.

"Chavex has associated with the rouge states of North Korea, Iran and Cuba"

It is spelt Chevex in each edit by the way. Users please ensure that this doesn't keep sneaking back in. Thanks.--Zleitzen 12:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

First my ban was not legitimate, Jaranda refused to discuss it. Second it is an accurate description Chavez says with pride he associates with these countries. And if you follow the news today Oct 9, 2006, North Korea was condenmed by the entire international community.

As far as Chavez goes he is a illegitimate authoratarian leader who is the bigest threat to stability in this hemisphere. that desciption I did not put on the pages even though it is true —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tannim (talk • contribs)

First you need a source, then you need to ensure that the source is reliable, then you need to ensure that your material is presented in a neutral fashion and not stated as fact but attributed to a point of view, then you'd need to justify why such a point of view is relevant, then you need to ensure that your sentence is spelled correctly. "Chavex" is a region in New Mexico. "Rouge" is red powder applied to women's cheeks. --Zleitzen 21:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

A more recent edit by Tannim [48] not only restored the POV sentence but also removed a wikilink and changed the spelling of "Chávez" in a couple of places. This is going beyond a mere POV issue JRSP 22:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it really tests my ability to AGF. I left a message for Tannim on his userpage, in case he wants to start backing things up. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)