Jump to content

Talk:Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez administration

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reliable sources should always take precedence over unreliable sources.

[edit]

The BBC, Accosicated Press, the Washington Post, and Business Week are much more reliable than a bunch of opinion columns from low circulation publications that have an agenda to push.

I added this to the "Agriculture and land reform" section, but someone else took it out.

A January 10, 2006 BBC article reported that since 2003, Chavez has been setting strict price controls on food, and that these price controls have caused shortages and hoarding.[1]

A January 22, 2008 Associated Press article reported that Chavez had ordered the military to seize 750 tons of food that sellers were illegally trying to smuggle across the border to sell for higher prices than what was legal in Venezuela, and that Chavez had also threatened to seize the property of farmers who sold food at prices that exceeded the government's price controls. [2]

On February 28, 2009 Chavez ordered the military to temporarily seize control of all the rice processing plants in the country and force them to produce at full capacity, which he claimed they had been avoiding in response to the price caps.[3]

On March 4, 2009, the BBC reported that Chavez had set minimum production quotas for 12 basic foods that were subject to price controls, including white rice, cooking oil, coffee, sugar, powdered milk, cheese, and tomato sauce. Business leaders and food producers claimed that the government was forcing them to produce this food at a loss. [4]

A June 20, 2009 article in the Washington Post reported on Chávez's policy of redistributing farmland. Chávez has seized many large farms from their owners. Although Chávez allows small farmers to work the land, he did not give them title to the land, and they are often required to work as part of a collective. Chávez said of the farmland, "The land is not private. It is the property of the state." Because of this collectivization, the income that a farmer receives does not correspond to the amount of work that he does. Some of the farmland that had been productive while under private ownership is now idle under collective ownership, and some of the farm equipment sits gathering dust. As a result, food production has fallen substantially. Nearly five years after the start of the land redistribution program, the country is now more dependent on food imports than ever before. Production of primary foods such as beef, rice, sugar cane, and milk have fallen. Carlos Machado, an agriculture expert at the Institute of Higher Administrative Studies in Caracas, stated, "If there is a word to describe all this, it is 'stagnant'... The government policy to increase the crop production in the country is a complete failure." Felicia Escobar, a lawyer and consultant on land issues who used to work for the Agriculture Ministry, said of this farm collectivization, "That is socialism... It did not work before, and it does not work now." One farmer, referring to the government officials overseeing the land redistribution, stated, "These people know nothing about agriculture."[5]

Chávez has seized many supermarkets from their owners. Under government ownership, the shelves in these supermarkets are often empty.[6]

  1. ^ Venezuelan shoppers face food shortages, BBC, January 10, 2006
  2. ^ Venezuelan troops crack down on smuggling along Colombian border, Associated Press, January 22, 2008
  3. ^ Chavez Seizes Venezuelan Rice Plants, Associated Press, February 28, 2009
  4. ^ Chavez boosts food price controls, BBC, March 4, 2009
  5. ^ In Venezuela, Land 'Rescue' Hopes Unmet, Washington Post, June 20, 2009
  6. ^ A Food Fight for Hugo Chavez, Business Week, March 11, 2010

Physalia physalis (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, without this information, the article only mentions the intentions of Chavez's food and agriculture programs, but does not mention the actual results. The article should mention both the intentions and the results. Physalia physalis (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • A June 20, 2009 article in the Washington Post reported on Chávez's policy of redistributing farmland. -- most of this was the editorial opinion of the author, mixed in with one-sided opinion quotes from non-notable figures, without any supporting evidence. Furthermore, the "facts" -- the source of which the paper fails to tell us -- contradict more reliable statistics that are discussed in the agriculture section below (which claim that rice production has increased dramatically)
  • Chávez has seized many supermarkets from their owners. Under government ownership, the shelves in these supermarkets are often empty. -- I've seen empty shelves in a store too, under the ownership of private owners. Discussing this is irrelevant and out-of-context. Of course Business Week was able to find shelves that were empty in Venezuela. They could also find them in Britain, Canada, or anywhere else with shelves. We don't need to discuss this trivia here. We are trying to cover the entire economy of a nation, and don't need to mention that doors were open, doors were shut, or shelves were empty and other such obvious facts of life. The fact that Business Week is considered reliable by blindly applying WP:RS is irrelevant. Focusing on this trivia is a violation of WP:DUE, and of common sense.
  • On March 4, 2009, the BBC reported that Chavez had set minimum production quotas for 12 basic foods -- this is already in the article.
  • A January 22, 2008 Associated Press article reported that Chavez had ordered the military to seize 750 tons of food that sellers were illegally trying to smuggle across the border -- there is a national program right now to combat food smuggling by criminal syndicates. Why is this particular seizure notable? If anything, we should talk about the program itself, and not try to cover each individual raid against smugglers.
  • A January 10, 2006 BBC article reported that since 2003, Chavez has been setting strict price controls on food, and that these price controls have caused shortages -- First off, what caused the shortages is an opinion. Some say that shortages are a result of private businesses hoarding food, and smuggling it out of country to make a profit. We can't choose one opinion (especially one which happens not to have any economic explanation backing it) over another.
  • The BBC, Accosicated Press, and Washington Post, are much more reliable than a bunch of opinion columns from low circulation publications that have an agenda to push -- What "bunch of opinion columns" are you talking about? The sources that are provided are WP:RS and provide factual data to back their assertions, unlike the BBC, AP, and Post which are backing their assertions with selective quotations and anecdotal, non-representative examples. Just because trivia, like a raid against smugglers, is reported on it the AP, does not mean that we have to give it as much weight as large-scale economic changes such as price controls or social spending.
  • Anyway, without this information, the article only mentions the intentions of Chavez's food and agriculture programs, but does not mention the actual results -- actually, it does mention the results -- that's what the entire "economic indicators" section is for.Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Food, like all commodities, always gets sold to the highest bidder. The only reason there are shortages, hoarding, and smuggling, is because of the price controls. When I first read about Chavez's price controls on food nearly a decade ago, I knew that they would cause shortages, hoarding, and smuggling, because in the history of the world, that is always what happens when the government sets price caps on food.
These things are not "trivia." They have been happening for nearly a decade. The specific examples that are cited are notable. The sources that I cited are a lot more reliable that the "opinion" columns that were already present such as this.
Physalia physalis (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the "economic indicators" are as good as you claim, then Chavez wouldn't be using the miltary to seize food, and he wouldn't be calling toilet paper a "luxury." Physalia physalis (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out this ARBCOM ruling:

"Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive"

"8) It is disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand."

"Passed 5 to 0 at 05:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)"

Physalia physalis (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note the requirements -- all of my removals were due to a violation of one or more of the following:
  • Written in neutral narrative (which the opinion quotes, and out-of-context, anecdotal, non-representative examples are not)
  • Pertain to the subject at hand (this does not include trivia like mentioning that somewhere in the nation, shelves are empty, or that a raid was made against smugglers)
  • Sourced reliably (see WP:RS -- if we find more reliable sources, which these papers are contradicting, then we should go with the more reliable sources. This is especially true when the papers support their claims with quotations or examples, rather than economic statistics.) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC, Washington Post, and Associated Press are all highly reliable sources. Business Week is pretty reliable, but not as reliable as those, but still more reliable that the other sources that were already there.
Please note that I did not erase any info from the article. I am an inclusionist, and I believe that articles should include, rather than exclude, information.
Physalia physalis (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that the BBC, AP, et al were not reliable. However, in this case, they either:
  1. Made claims that were not backed by anything other than selective quotations and examples, rather than economic statistics, whereas more reliable sources, which did back their claims with data, contradicted them.
  2. Focused on trivia. It's fine if you are an "inclusionist", but unfortunately, covering the economy of a nation is a very large subject, and in order to keep the article length manageable, we should avoid focusing on trivia.
  3. Were editorializing. Just because a source is reliable, does not mean that we have to include a bunch of statements of opinion. We're going to have a hard enough time keeping the length manageable just focusing on the economic facts, even without getting into the enormous amount of opinions that have been voiced on it. As an encyclopedia, I think that our primary concern to be to cover as much factual ground as possible, and then, space-permitting, add the most notable opinions -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NB the 15% import tax was for "non-priority" items, not "luxury" items.[1] Rd232 talk 18:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC) And if you're talking about "shifting the burden" you ought to mention by way of explanation the VAT reduction from 15 to 9% [2] (though more recently this went up again). Rd232 talk 18:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source referred to the items such as imported toilet paper as a "luxury." Physalia physalis (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And other sources referred to jewelry, rugs, and Hummers as luxuries, but you seem obsessed with toilet paper. Why is that? There are hundreds of items that are being taxed, and I don't feel that there is any way to neutrally allow editors here to cherry-pick items at will, to satisfy their personal political objectives. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can live a relatively good life without jewelry, rugs, and Hummers. But not toilet paper. Physalia physalis (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere did it say that people are living without toilet paper. It said that imported toilet paper is being taxed, not illegalized. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When selling food for profit is treated as a crime that makes the food subject to seizure by the military, and toilet paper is considered a "luxury," you know that a country has achieved communism. Physalia physalis (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well I could retort that When you reject the evidence of both your own source and another, you know you've achieved dogma. Cough. Both sources state "non-priority"; the newspaper source editorially adds "luxury". It's also quite possible that the tax was only added to some categories of more expensive TP. In any case the import tax, as noted, is at least partially offset by the contemporary VAT reduction (and also we don't know for sure there is no domestic TP production). Maybe you should editorialise less and stick to the facts. Rd232 talk 18:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how or why Associated Press, the BBC, and the Washington Post got their information. What does matter is that they published it. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Physalia physalis (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does matter, if the claims are made without factual support, and more reliable sources contradict it, and back their claims with supporting data. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Physalia physalis appears to be a sockpuppet for grundle2600 -- see this link: http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-world-events/577844-wikipedia-editors-wont-allow-information-about-hugo-chavezs-harmful-food-policies.html -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 16:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked as such. Love the succinct response to him in that link though :) Rd232 talk 17:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC, Associated Press, Washington Post, etc., are very reliable. The information is true. It is not "trivia" because Chavez has been doing these things for eight years, and hundreds of such articles have been published during that time. Without this information, the article gives readers a highly inaccurate account of the subject. Gitchee Goommee Noonee Wa-Wa (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have simply repeated exactly what User:Physalia physalis said above, my response to you is the same as it was to him. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This contributor is, rather obviously, yet another sock of grundle2600. Pay him no mind. PhGustaf (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspected that this is the case, but I have no way of verifying this from a single statement (I was going to wait until I had a more significant sample), and try to stick away from sockpuppet accusations unless I'm pretty certain. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked him. He's not really trying to hide it. Rd232 talk 20:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

moved from Talk:Hugo Chavez (reply to banned user user:Grundle2600

* Jrtayloriv stated, "almost all the information he is trying to add is already in Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez government ... That's not true .... The only mention of any of that info in that entire article is this one paragraph:... -- Except that it is true, and that it is not in that one paragraph. The only things that were removed are: (1) the non-notable opinion quotes, and (2) the non-notable seizure of smuggled food. Everything else is not only in the article, but much of it was actually expanded with other reliable sources to give more information and context. For instance, the rice plants being seized, is mentioned in the "Nationalizations" section, where it belongs ... maybe finding the others would be a good way to acquaint yourself with what is actually on the page before we continue the discussion.
* The source didn't just say the the price controls "hurt their profits." -- Actually, several of them did use the word "profits" (or variations thereof, such as "profitable", etc.). Again, take a look. Even Natalie Pearson of the Associated Press (who is so anti-Chavez that she is willing to lie to her readers and fudge statistics) uses the word "profits".
* Also, that one paragraph isn't even in the agriculture section. Instead, it is in the section on programs to help the poor, which wrongly implies that the effects of the program are mainly helpful, and not mainly harmful. -- That's because the price controls are an anti-poverty measure, not an agricultural policy. It does not imply that they are successful or "helpful" in any way. I challenge you to try to form a coherent argument about why this is the case
* That other article doesn't say anything about Chavez using the military to seize private property. -- Well, actually it does. Please go and read the article before complaining about it.
* That other article doesn't say anything about how the government seizure of the farms has taken away much of the economic incentive for farmers to grow food, or that the government seizures of the farms caused food production to fall. -- The first clause is a statement of opinion with a bunch of losely defined terms, and no factual data backing it. Second, agricultural production has increased dramatically, so the second part is simply false. See the statistics in the "Economic Indicators" section on agriculture. If you don't agree with these statistics, try to find a reliable source that provides data to back their claims that agricultural output has fallen. Using as sources news corporations like the Washington Post or Associated Press which frequently lie (as we've seen an example of above) and simply state "Food production has fallen" without mentioning where they got this data is unacceptable. Due to their history of dishonesty and statistical manipulation, we should make sure that they aren't just making things up, by ensuring that they tell us where they got their information from.
* That other article doesn't have any of the quotes from the Washington Post. -- Nor does it need to include non-notable and misleading statements of opinion. Especially when the article in question is including quotes of people who are demonstrably lying -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Using as sources news corporations like the Washington Post or Associated Press which frequently lie (as we've seen an example of above) and simply state 'Food production has fallen' without mentioning where they got this data is unacceptable."

What? That's not true. Associated Press and the Washington Post are very highly reliable sources. But the agriculture section doesn't have any citations from those sources. Instead, it cites venezuelanalysis.com, which I have never heard of.

96.235.46.41 (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not reliable when they are lying and contradicting much more reliable sources. And the fact that you've never heard of Venezuelanalysis is irrelevant. There are probably 1000+ academic journals you've never heard of either. Venezuelanalysis is clearly a reliable source, as you can see from [3]. There has been ample reasoning provided in support of it (HRW feels comfortable using it as a source, the editorial staff are all notable Venezuela experts, it is required reading at several prestigious universities, impeccable record for factual accuracy, etc. etc.), and nothing but vague accusations of "bias" against it. Anyhow, see you around, puppet. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop feeding the banner user (WP:DENY). If you don't reply, his comments can be deleted. Rd232 talk 08:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the article cite food intake in terms of pounds instead of calories?

[edit]

The article states:

"Per capita food consumption in Venezuela grew from 370 pounds per year in 1998 to 415 pounds per year in 2009. The recommended amount of food that each person should consume per year is about 440 pounds per year."

This is the first time that I have ever seen food intake measured in pounds of food instead of calories. A pound of steak is not the same as a pound of celery.

Physalia physalis (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point -- I'll add more on caloric intake right now. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for pointing that out -- I've updated it with calorie intake, and malnutrition stats. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your compliment, and for adding it to the article. I am concnered that it says "Average caloric intake has risen from 91.0% of the recommended levels in 1998 to 101.6% in 2007" instead of citing the number of calories. It's possible that the "recommended levels" could have changed over time. For example, Associated Press reported last year that Chavez is telling people to lose weight. The article should cite the actual number of calories, not a percentage of some "recommended" amount that could be subject to change. Physalia physalis (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to look at the United Nations (UN) Food and Agriculture Organization, which is where the recommended caloric intake levels came from. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory information

[edit]

Almost all news sources are saying that Venezuela imports 70 percent of food it consumes yet this wiki article contradicts it. Can anyone correct the information?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-08-12/hugo-chavez-venezuela-food-shortages/57021168/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinnyv (talk • contribs) 11:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article. If you need help with anything else, just ask! bobrayner (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Date Error

[edit]

Under Taxation one can read the following sentence; however, the resolution Official Gazette dates from December 6th, 2006.

"In October 2009, SENIAT, the Venezuelan tax collection agency announced that it would tax cigarettes and alcohol, in order to reduce their consumption" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.88.228.241 (talk) 10:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy

[edit]

Zozs changed the lede to insist that Chávez governments were democratically elected. I have removed this, because it's incompatible with what reliable independent sources say, and this article is not the right place to redefine the meaning of democracy. bobrayner (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

dates

[edit]

in the "extreme poverty rate" graph, the range is from 1990 to 2013, even though chavez was elected in 1998. in the inflation graph, the range is from 1998 to 2013. i suspect these dates were selectively chosen for political reasons. please see inflation from the year 1990 to 2013.--Riothero (talk) 03:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reduction of Inequality

[edit]
  • i am surprised that “Over the Horizon Proliferation Threats”, a book about the threat posed by nuclear weapons in the 21st century, could even be considered a reliable source for the 'information' on Venezuela’s inequality under Chavez. the book has little to do with Venezuela; the country itself is mentioned only in passing, in the context of assessing Latin America’s nuclear capacity. and there is just one sentence addressing economic inequality in Venezuela--the issue for which the book is cited as a source--and the authors merely repeat the debunked claim of a Francisco Rodríguez, whom they credit in a footnote.
  • Rodríguez claimed, in a 2008 Foreign Affairs article, that “…according to the Venezuelan Central Bank, inequality has actually increased during the Chávez administration, with the Gini coefficient (a measure of economic inequality, with zero indicating perfect equality and one indicating perfect inequality) increasing from 0.44 to 0.48 between 2000 and 2005” (p53).
  • This particular claim was debunked by Mark Weisbrot in his substantive response to Rodríguez’s article: not only does Rodríguez exercise selective use of data in choosing the years 2000 and 2005, he cherry-picks data from two different sources. Weisbrot provides a helpful table showing all the available data, covering a full range of years, by three different sources (UN Economic Commission for Latin America, the World Bank and Venezuela’s National Statistics Institute (INE)). The data indicates a clear, substantial decrease in inequality during the Chavez years; the most consistent data, from the INE, shows the GINI coefficient declining from 48 in 1998 (or 48 in 2003) to 42 in 2007. In 2013, the INE reported a GINI coefficient at 39–apparently the lowest level in the history of Venezuela, and the lowest among the countries of Latin America.
  • Could we report these numbers somewhere in this article? The reduction in inequality is reportedly a major accomplishment of Chavismo, yet little (other than false information) has been said on this subject.--Riothero (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to believe in Weisbrot's data as well. We could possibly mention both? Stanford would be more reliable than Weisbrot any day though.--Zfigueroa (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I've done my research and can find Stanford more reliable than CEPR by far. The fact that more than one of the staff of CEPR is from the Venezuelan government's Venezuelan Information Office is kind of worrying. Besides the fact, Stanford still uses Rodriguez's data years after CEPR allegedly "debunked" the issue.--Zfigueroa (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? "Stanford" versus "Weisbrot"? That is a totally disingenuous way to frame the dispute at issue here. The claim does not come from Stanford, but from Francisco Rodríguez, who used to work for the Venezuelan government and currently works for Bank of America (which I find 'kind of worrying' too). The fact that it is repeated in a book about the threat of nuclear proliferation in the 21st century (a topic that has little to do with Venezuela), a book written by a "Professor of National Security Affairs and Dean of Graduate Studies at the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey" and a "Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs in the Office of the Secretary of Defense" neither of whom are affiliated with Stanford University (as professors, researchers, students, etc.), and neither of whom even claim any expertise regarding Venezuela ... means exceptionally little. And the data that debunks Rodríguez's claim that--inequality has increased under Chavez--does not come from Weisbrot, but from the World Bank, the U.N., and Venezuela's own statistics institute. Your mudslinging at Weisbrot by drawing six-degrees-of separation between the CEPR (the think-tank he works for) and the Venezuelan government is besides the point.--Riothero (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into the authors. What I meant is that if it were Stanford (which it isn't) it would be more reliable than CEPR. CEPR usually favors the Ven. Gov. while I now remember Rodriguez criticizes the government. Stanford, which is very prestigious, would seem to be the more neutral of the two. But I apologize once again as I thought it was Stanford who accepted Rodriguez's data and not US government affiliates.--Zfigueroa (talk) 03:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The World Bank's "Venezuela Overview" page currently states that, in addition to "an important decline in moderate poverty", "inequality has decreased, reducing the Gini Index from 0.49 in 1998 to 0.39 in 2012, which is among the lowest in the region."
A Bloomberg news article in 2013 reported that "Venezuelans’ quality of life improved at the third-fastest pace worldwide and income inequality narrowed during the presidency of Hugo Chavez, who tapped the world’s biggest oil reserves to aid the poor."

"Venezuela has the lowest rate of income inequality – the smallest gap between the rich and the poor – of all countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, according to a March 5 report by UN-HABITAT, the United Nations Human Settlements Program.

The report, called “The State of Cities in Latin America and the Caribbean 2012,” uses the so-called Gini coefficient to measure inequality. It said Venezuela has the region’s lowest figure of 0.41, followed by Uruguay, and that the index has fallen “significantly” since 1990. The coefficient rates countries on a scale of zero to 1.0, with a higher number indicating greater inequality." (Bloomberg)

Read the UN-HABITAT report here. A graph on page 43, citing data from the UN's ECLAC, shows the "Evolution of the Gini index in selected countries" (including Venezuela), from 1990 to 2009.--Riothero (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deception

[edit]

Riothero, here you said "let's stick to what reliable, independent sources say" whilst actually removing reliably sourced content. You should understand that deliberate deception and whitewashing are not welcome on wikipedia. Please stop. bobrayner (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the above discussion under "Reduction of Inequality". It might surprise you to learn that the talk page can be used for more than just engaging in ad hominem. The content that you insist on including is NOT consistent with "what reliable, independent sources say". In fact, reliable, independent sources (like the World Bank and United Nation's Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC)) say the opposite! This is what I was attempting to point out to you. --Riothero (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can defend the debunked claim (that economic inequality increased during the Chavez presidency), it should be removed in favor of "what reliable, independent sources say" (which is that inequality actually decreased during this period).--Riothero (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Can you show which source says that Stanford University didn't report an increase in gini coefficients? There is no such source in the article, and I have found no such source, but you repeatedly say there is. It is difficult to understand how any competent and honest editor would do so. I have replaced the original, sourced content. If you have a source which supports your truly exceptional claim, you should provide it. Pray tell, which source proves that Stanford University never said such things? bobrayner (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The burden is on you to support your fringe theory, not on me to disprove it ...though I already have, citing recent data by the World Bank and the U.N.--reliable, mainstream sources--showing a reduction in the GINI coefficient under Chavez. You do not cite any reliable mainstream sources for your claim that Venezuela's inequality rose during this period. As I explained above in the talk page (which, again, I urge you to read), "Stanford University" did not report on GINI coefficients; rather, "Stanford University PRESS" published a 2012 book, co-authored by a U.S. Naval School professor and a U.S. Defense Department official, on the topic of the threat of nuclear proliferation in the 21st century. Venezuela's name is mentioned only a handful of times in this 315-page book, in a chapter on the potential development of nuclear technology in Latin America (the words "GINI" and "inequality" appear only once--NOT a major concern of the book); prior to a brief passage focused entirely on potential nuclear issues arising from Venezuela's relations with Iran and its neighbors, there are some brief statements about the Chavez government (as background info). One sentence summarizes the claims of Francisco Rodríguez in his 2008 article (the co-authors do not demonstrate, or even claim to have special knowledge or expertise on Venezuela): "Even according to Venezuela's Central Bank, inequality measured by Gini cooefficients has increased under Chavez..." In the 2008 article, this claim is based on Rodríguez's comparison of the GINI coefficients from 2000 and 2005. Even if we assume that the numbers were correct--at that time (despite evidence to the contrary), the data is still outdated. The narrow 2000-2005 timeframe covers less than half the length of Chavez's presidency (which ended in 2013).--Riothero (talk) 09:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Economic_policy_of_the_Hugo_Chávez_administration&oldid=1196373500"