Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Trotskyist?

While Hugo Chavez may have said that he is a trotskyist, his actions and policies don't really resemble trotskyism at all. I think he was probably just using it as another word for Socialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spongesquid (talk • contribs) 22:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Trotsky was a socialist/communist. So, Trotskyism is socialism. --Hillawiya (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Trotskyism is a form of socialism. I know nothing about it, but just because it is a socialist philosophy doesn't mean that Chavez is a faithful follower of it.-Jared Croft

This sentence is based on an opinion article

This sentence is based on an opinion article and therefore cannot be presented as a statement of fact:

Only after polls showed that 60% of Venezuelans opposed the measure did Chavez add incentives such as reducing the workday from eight to six hours and lowering the voting age from 18 to 16.

[1] JRSP 00:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, opinion articles are not necessarily off-limits for factual statements. This article is by a professor of Latin American studies and appeared in a respected journal, so it does have some weight behind it. I can understand the objection, but to say it black-and-white cannot be presented as factual is a bit much. <eleland/talkedits> 00:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Being a controversial statement, it would need to be attributed to Shifter, and possibly balanced with another opinion. JRSP 00:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Chavez is the current PRESIDENT of Venezuela!!!

This caudillo crap is beyond shameless.... Chavez is the democratically elected president of Venezuela, the very first sentence of this article shows the article's bias...

Another Economist/CIA backed edit no doubt. --24.150.77.3 (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Chill out, it was simple vandalism and has been reverted. Much more likely to have been a bored kid than a CIA officer. In future you can fix it yourself, rather than declaring your outrage on the article talk page. <eleland/talkedits> 18:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with both Eleland's popinbts. were the CIA or any opposition group to try to influence the article there are many ways they could do so (as a project we are vulnerable to POV pushers of any ilk) but a silly piece of vandlaism is not one of them. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well there were several news stories about FBI and CIA systematically editing Wikipedia, and seeing as how this article features so many Economist sources, and we all know what that journal advocates, I assumed this was the approved edit. I'd rather post my outrage here than just edit eithout approval. --24.150.77.3 (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree change it to dictator he is subverting the rights of the ooppsition and stole the last election.65.96.135.42 (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless multiple reliable sources say that, Wikipedia can't call it that way. Our opinions as editors don't count, this is not a blog. JRSP (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Find evidence of a stolen election if you want to make an accusation of that. I saw a landslide in his favor. Also, the opposition dropped out, he did nothing impacting their foolish decision. Claiming that he cheated because he has no opposition is like fighting the fur industry by buying a massive ammount of furs, and then shouting at them for killing more animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.133.20 (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So I guess that Hitler winning elections and referendums without opposition makes him a "democratic leader", what about Stalin's opposition, I haven't seen opposing parties in his ballot boxes. The opposition withdrew BECAUSE Chavez is undemocratic, it is foolish to say that he is a democrat just BECAUSE he showed up for an uncontested election. Unfortunately for the international community wining elections (even uncontested) is enough to be called a democrat, nobody cares if the person in question actually governs as a democrat, and alas Wikipedia does the same.... 190.74.70.77 (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.74.70.77 (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Trotskysm

Just a note, I would make a change if I could, I think someone here should take care of it.

Personally, I don´t think the declaration "I am a trotskyst" is good enough as to be qualified as a valid reference when Chavez is described as a troskyst properly.

Also, I dont see any special influence of Trotsky in Chavez´s work.

I think, the sentence should be changed from "He is also a trotskyst" to "He is a self-declared trotskyst".-------sabin

Well how much more can he do other than claim to be a Trot, I mean what would you accept as evidence in his actions that he is a Trot? If this is you're logic then every politician in the world really could be called a 'self-declared conservative' or a 'self-declared socialist' because anyone can call into question their beliefs and their application as a leader. Chavez's action are actually alot like Trotskyism, unlike other socialist ideologies Chavez did not think straight after he came to power that the revolution was over, he thinks of it as an ongoing struggle to strength the revolution and build socialism practically in this modern century. 21st Century Socialism and Bolivarianism is also alot like Trotskyism because it rejects the bureaucratic apparatus of the state as the driving force and instead holds a socialism 'from the ground up' grassroots populism to be the way to socialism. Chavez has clearly proven this with his local cooperatives and communes which have free health facilities and cheap food outlets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.225.104 (talk) 08:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What would be enough? A reference to a socialism specialized third party that states so.

I could claim to be Superman, but that doesnt make me that guy. Nazi means "national socialist" and them claiming to be socialists don´t turn them automatically into so.

The difference here is that most "conservatives" or "socialists" dont claim to be anything, just do their works and thats all. Also, lot of people could relate Chavez´s bureaucritic policies and control over the justice system more to those of Stalin or Fidel Castro.

Therefore, Wikipedia being an accurate information provider, is required to take a "I am also a trostkyst" as it is, a declaration from Chavez himself.

Im not saying he is not a Trotskyst, and that is not what I´m discussing. But there is no valid reference, and without any more deep source, Wikipedia should leave it open for the reader to decide it.------ sabin

Stalin or Fidel Castro? Since when did Stalin or Fidel Castro permit a media to be in existence that actively supported coups and attempts on the leaders life? In most western countries this is not allowed, it is strange in such an autocracy that Hugo Chavez permits (grudingly, admittedly) a media that tried to overthrow him and tries to influence the countries political outcomes.172.142.197.162 (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

???? Chavez´s bureaucritic policies and control over the justice system , theres no one talking about his media polices, which by the way even if he permits so, he has demostrated he has the power to override and discard media anytime he wants, wich is not precisely a demostration of free speech.----sabin

Wikipedia is not a forum. —JRSP (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Faulty Table?

Anyone beside me notice that in the Hugo Chavez Election Results table, about a third of the way down the page, the percentages add up to 130 percent of the population? 59% voted no + 41% voted yes + 30% did not vote adds up to 130%

The "voted no" and "voted yes" only take in account those who voted. 157.253.22.14 20:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No link to "Criticism of Hugo Chávez" topic

I noticed that there is no outward link to the "Criticism of Hugo Chávez" topic, although there is a link from that topic to this. Is merely linking to criticism considered a breach of NPOV? The tone of this topic edges over into hagiography already, and placing all the criticism in a separate topic with no link to it is highly unusual -- perhaps in itself a breach of NPOV. Gruffbear 02:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a link from the lead and another from the criticism section of this article. JRSP 02:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see it. Sorry. Gruffbear 02:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Chavez

Im a bit miffed about the statment 'Some foreign governments, especially the government of the United States, view Chávez as a threat to democracy in the region', I dont have a problem with this as it is sourced, and that this is an excuse that the USA often use to denounce him, however I find it strange that this can be legitimate criticism A: that Chavez is democratically elected and has brought back democratic elections which were not there previously B: 'threat to democracy in Latin America', seriously Im a bit wtf (pardon my language), how can Chavez be a threat to democracy in Latin America when it barely exists outside Venezuela, when the United States has been the main threat to Latin American democratically elected governments (watch 'The war on democracy' despite its title and obviously set opinion, it provides factually udisputable evidence) , and where it does exist it is universally left-wing and therefore universally supported by Chavez. As I say I dont have a problem with saying that the USA claims to oppose Chavez because they view him as a threat to Latin American democracy (although, what democracy? its ruled by the Munroe doctrine) however the sentence quoted shouldnt be placed in the first paragraph, as to me at least it is a logical fallacy, it should be rephrased and put in a criticism section. I do have a pro-Chavez opion I dont deny it, but I believe the points I have made are perfectly logical, and we all have opinions, even those who contst what I have said.172.143.124.86 20:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be in favor of the change you propose. The entire topic seems to have been thoroughly vetted so as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of the leftist Wikipedia reader community; so much so that it reads like a Hugo Chavez puff piece. So why not make the change? It will make this topic even sillier. (At some point, somebody might be tempted to flag this topic as "a work of fiction written in in-universe style," but that's another issue.)

Do topics written like this tend to ruin the cred of the Wikipedia concept? I'm not sure. But in any case, the change you propose can't possibly make this topic worse, so go for it. Gruffbear 17:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, not opinion. I'm sorry that your opinion isn't reflected in reliable sources, and I don't support editorializing or removing reliably sourced content. In fact, if there's any problem with that statement, it could be the sole mention of the US. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, it looks like I have a 2-1 consensus (having waited a week) because some editors cant take the project seriosuly, and feel they have to try and be funny......

Also check the sction below (i havent moved it up here yet) where I clarified what my points were and tried to show that Im not just POV spoapboxing.172.142.232.113 (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I moved this from the section below, a user replied to my comment (I think) in the wrong section172.142.197.162 (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC) :

Idiot! The elections were fixed beyond all proportion. You're just plain wrong. WRONG. grrr. Have you even been to Venezuela? No, probably not. The contention that Chavez is a threat to democracy is correct and substantiated. To leave it out of the article would be biased in favor of this dictator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.66.1 (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume you meant to paste that in the section above, in response to what I wrote, please refrain from referring to me as an idiot, I do not think of myself as an idiot (I have a high IQ anyway...), however maybe I am... (my spelling suggests so =P) but it is not really for you to say so, you are right (admittedly) that I have not been to Venezuela. However, I have studied this topic (in both English and Spanish) and I know for a fact that these elections have been watched closely, and have been deemed free by both the left and the right (except possibly some far-right wing groups, though it would be presumptious to assume that you are a far right winger). I would say Venezuela (from what I gather about it) is pretty fair, considering Chavez's own media is allowed to launch specific and derogotory attacks on him, and tried to initiate a coup against him, and still not being competely smashed after Chavez's return to power..... living in England I can tell you that the media here is not allowed to go out of its way to criticise the government at all, its meant to remain impartial, in fact the BBC was prosecuted for not being impartial, so please dont give me a lecture about liberty of the media. My point was this, to me the statement that 'Chavez is viewed as a threat to democracy in the region ' simply makes no logical sense to me, its not that is unsourced, it just is a logical fallacy, like the sttement 'chairs generally have two legs' for example, I would have no problem with the statement 'Some hold the opinon that Chavez does not support democracy' . Specifically in the region makes no sense, the source used (BBC) only vaguely points to criticism and itself does not elaborate, I view the BBC a reputable as far as it goes, but it hardly gives any reason for its statment. In the region (by this I assume South America) the only democratically elected governments currently are left-wing, please name for me a democratically elected right-wing government in this region of South America, and ill change my opinion. By democratically elected I dont mean supported by America and its Munroe doctrine, I mean actually democratic with free elections. If you cannot give me an example I assume I am correct in believing the statement is a logical fallacy, and ill change it to what I proposed (unless someone can come up with something better). As far as I know Chavez is not a threat to any left-wing democracies in South America, and since the only demorcacies there are left-wing (as far as I know) he is not anti-democracy in the region. Also my question that: If Chavez is anti-democratic why did he liberalise Venezuela and its media? still has not been adressed.172.142.232.113 (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Im giving you guys a day to come up with the awnsers to my questions, If there arent any awnsers Ill assume I am correct in believing the statement in question was a logical fallacy, I propose changing the sentence to 'Some believe Chavez's policies to be contrary to democracy, including the present US government' unless someone comes up with something better. Seeing as I have a somewhat ridiculous 2-1 consensus in my favour (as one user cant take this project seriously and ;lodge specific and meaningful criticism). believe the source supports my change, and that the source did not give a specific reason for supporting the previous statement (what democracy in the region is right-wing? what democracy is not supported by Chavez in Latin America?). The source (short-bbc article, hardly authortative) however is not too vague to support my change, it shows that Chavez is criticised by some people as anti-democratic, but makes no sense with ' in the region '. 172.142.197.162 (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

One last thing, mainly just an inquisititive note as it is a matter of POV, why is America worried about lack of democracy in Latin America, when has it supported Latin American democracy over the Munroe doctrine? When has it supported Latin American democracy full stop? When has it supported dictators? 'cough' Pinochet 'cough' I cant remeber...172.142.197.162 (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

PS as I mentioned before, some dyslexia issues, bad spelling mainly, feel free to correct if your bothered

Also (this is a bit off topic but Im replying to an above comment), if your worried about offending our leftist sensibilities, maybe you should check out the wikipedia articles on the middle east, islam, islamophobia, and all those wacky obscurist nationalist groups in the middle east that have their own way with all their articles. Wikipedia is not solely left, nor is it solely right, its mixed.

Okay Ive waited a day since my original reply to the crticism I recieved, theere havent been any ansers to the questions I asked (in the big paragraph) yet, therefore ill log into my account and make the change I proposed (if I can retrieve my password...), you can remove it if you provide a reason why the statement as it is is not a logical fallacy, or you can discuss it here if you think it is too poorly written.172.216.245.193 (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I cant find my password, it gives you guys 4 days =P, seeing as its unlikely one of you will make the change for me.172.216.245.193 (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, the paragraph says

Chávez's reforms have evoked controversy in Venezuela and abroad, receiving anything from vehement criticism and enthusiastic support. Some people, especially in the government of the United States, view Chávez as a threat to democracy in Latin America. Others sympathize with his ideology or welcome his bilateral trade and reciprocal aid agreements. In 2005 and 2006 he was named one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people.

I understand the main idea of the paragraph is synthesising that HC is a controversial figure: some people & governments (specially the US gov) don't like him while some others do. What changes do you suggest? JRSP (talk) 10:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well ive made a new account, I waited rather longer than I said I would, the change that I proposed is in the text and Ill be changing it to such a I havent heard any specific criticism of what I jave written. I have spelling and grammar issues so if you notice anything in what I have written feel free to correct it, but not change the meaning of what I have written without reason stated.Anti-BS Squad (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What?, you mean Chavez supports democracy?, seriously i dont know what you mean when you say there is little democracy outside venezuela when most goverments such as brazil, colombia, argentina and chile have democratic systems. Chavez does seem to be a threat, he supports and admires Fidel Castro, who is a dictator and is against media that criticises him, furthermore lately he has been supporting FARC guerrilas in colombia and proposed to stop qualifying them as terrorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.233.245.66 (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

To anon:

First, you are using the term Monroe Doctrine wrong. It was a doctrine of keeping European powers out of the western hemisphere. Not controlling latin American countries. I suppose if you want to push that that is the policy of the U.S. you could use an extension of Manifest Destiny or some such.

Almost all of latin America is now democratised, after a long systematic fight of Soviet inspired instigation, the forces supported by the U.S. were victorious and now democratic. Say what you want by the means to achieve those ends. Most of latin America supports neo-liberal politics and have opened up their economies from state beurocratic regulation, and are now rapidly developing and mildly prosperous as a result of those policies.

Democracy, capitalism, and close U.S. relations are the norm in latin america now. Socialism and Chavestistas are the fringe.

You have a very revisionist view not only of history, but contemporary events as well. Nobody would claim that most of latin America is dictatorships. You created a figment imagination that support your own worldview, because reality does not. Thus, your opinion of the wording in this article is worthless. I recommend all your edits to be reverted. Chudogg (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Doubtfully this will receive attention anytime soon. So to address the sentence: "Some people, especially in the government of the United States, view Chávez as a threat to democracy in Latin America.[3]". This is blatant POV pushing. First, i see no reason to single out the United States. Chavez has erupted globabl controversy with supporters and opposition in all countries, including Venezuela itself. By putting the qualifer "the government of the United States" the editor is trying to influence the reader to believe that it is only political and/or economic interests that oppose Chavez. This is blatantly false. The majority of posters on Democratic Underground and Daily Kos see Chavez as anti-Democratic. The majority, if not the entirety of major leftwing publications view Chavez as anti-Democratic (the Economist is a center-left publication, btw). Cleary, in the United States at least, the unified consenus from the entire political spectrum view chavez as anti-democratic, and only an extreme left faction support Chavez. It is obviouse that it is not merely "the government" in the U.S. that opposes Chavez as the above editor attempts to portray. To find views supporting Chavez one as to look towards minor socialist zines and websites. Hopefully a more indepedent minded admin will revert this POV.Chudogg (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok guys, i see you "democratic people" need a little help to stop writing stupidities. Understand this : In the world, there's as many people thinking USA are a threat to democracy than people thinking chavez is one.

Even if they're certainly far less richer than the first. Understood? So stop with your stupid POV about "some people blablabla"

Some people think bush is a pacifist, some people think whales can fly,etc etc....

U will always find some people to think something about someone so dont write this and stay focused on the facts

Bad evil chavez is against right-wing TV? But there's some in his country, while in the USA i don't heard about a leftist TV....(is there one in the whole NATO block?)

Stay to the facts and dont try to think, its far too painful for US citizens.77.196.65.163 (talk)

I was the priginal editor here, I lost my account password---again!, and I cant be bothered to make a new account because getting anything doen on wikipedia is a nightmare, I didnt make any edits in the end, because I could see there would be problems, I just left it, so your actually attacking the contribution of a right-wing editor, I didnt claim most of Latin America was run by dictatorships, I did claim that most of democratic Latin America supports Chavez and is left-wing in leaning, of course there is always argument over what is democratic, in some people's eyes (such as possibly yourself) democracy is only when the right is in power, and whatever government the right has in power is a democracy, sorry to say this is not the case. I dont see how Chavez is anti-democratic, only the American and to an extent his own media presents him as such, his own media has been allowed to take political liberties against him (and continue!) to an extent that would be unheard of in the US, or the UK (which incidentally is where I come from), there is not much evidence to say that Chavez is anti-democratic, considering independant watchdogs have usually indicated his elections were freer than that of the first election of George Bush Jnr, and Chavez has a free medai which in the past has even been allowed to lauch a coup against him. Considering the fact that the US was happy to replace a fairly elected presidentwith someone who would most likely lead the country into an authoritarian dictatorship, and have done with numerous other leaders in similar circumstances in the past (see Pinochet), I really dont see how this article can take the view point that America is actually concerned about democracy in the region, looking at history and the present the mere idea seems laughable to be honest.86.133.101.176 (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

two issues (effort to keep to the point) Someone early on top of this page has suggested that chavez brough back democracy in venezuela. that is only correct if you are willing to admit that it was chavez himself who tried to put out democracy in the early nineties. Venezuela has been a democracy since the late 50's, if I'm not mistaken. I have a lot of friends from there. Also, true, the CIA backed pinochet, but becuase he was bringing soviets into chile. you have to be honest when making statements about history. Not to defend US policy, but that's how things were during the cold war. US has always supported democracy in the whole world. that is not something to laugh at. methods can be debated, however. Motive is another 20 dollars, as they say.137.246.104.100 (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Editing

Why can I not edit this page? It's nothing substantial, only a grammatical mistake.--SCJE 18:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Article is semi-protected: anonymous users and new accounts can't edit it. You can wait a few days, request some administrator to remove protection or just say below what the mistake is and any "old" user can fix it. JRSP 18:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The error is found under the heading "2003-2004 recall Vote." the mistake itself is "The Colombians were outfit in Venezuelan military uniforms..." The word "outfit" should be in past tense (outfitted). Someone who is authorized please fix this. Thank you. --SCJE 18:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Education

On the introduction of Hugo Chavez it is said that he studied political science at the graduate level without obtaining a degree and it cites note number 8 as reference, but when note number 8 is read (text is in spanish), it clearly states that he obtained a masters degree but with his thesis pending. I think this implies that he was pursuing a Phd, for which a thesis would be necessary, (otherwise it wouldn't be stated in his biographie that his thesis is still pending), but since it isn't necessary to do a thesis for a masters degree, he did in fact obtain a masters degree in political science as cited on note 8 which a link to a venezuelan goverment website. In conclusion, someone miscited reference number 8 in saying that he left without a degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santafe785 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, in the Venezuelan higher education system, a Thesis IS necessary for an Msc degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.109.32.51 (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, Venezuelan higher education system officially uses the word "Thesis" only for doctoral dissertations. However, undergraduate degrees and master degrees usually require some research work, normally called trabajo especial de grado/maestría though many people informally call them tesis. Reference must be talking about his special research work for obtaining his master degree. JRSP (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Native American politician

I removed Category:Native American politicians from this article. For one thing, that category's supercats make it clear that it means "Native Americans" in the sense of people indigenous to what is now the U.S. Also, the article does not substantiate that Huguo Chávez is an indigenous person.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Chavez calls for second referendum

This is my first time suggesting a change to wikipedia, and I'm not sure how to do it, but I thought I'd mention this article I came across today, and how it's not in Chavez's main wiki entry. www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN1131818720080111

According to this Reuters article, during a state-of-the-nation address on Friday Jan. 11, 2008 Chavez once again brought up the idea of eliminating the constitutional provision on term-limits to his presidency and allowing him to run for re-election indefinitely-- despite a previous attempt failing back in Dec 2007. Although his second and final term is set to end in 2013, Chavez suggested holding a recall vote against himself in 2010, the earliest possible date, and "add[ing] a question in the referendum to also determine if Venezuelans want to give him the right of 'indefinite re-election.'"

Material removed from Code Pink article

We recently removed material from Code Pink after determining that said material was off-topic as far as Code Pink was concerned. An editor identified the material as being more appropriate on this article. If you're interested, here's the diff where we removed it: [2]. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Military Policy

Please can I remove the excerpt under 'Military Policy' because it is not a Military Policy at all. --Uwaisis (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the entire section should be removed> It is not miltary policy and moreover has not context here...--Agrofe (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed it from article. Here's a copy if someone thinks it can be useful in the article or anywhere else:

A January 22, 2008 article from Associated Press states, "Venezuelan troops are cracking down on the smuggling of food... the National Guard has seized about 750 tons of food... Hugo Chavez ordered the military to keep people from smuggling scarce items like milk... He's also threatened to seize farms and milk plants..." [3]

JRSP (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with "military policy," and more importantly the article has been very selectively edited to give the impression that Chavez is enforcing a rationing policy, rather than regulations at the border. Another drive-by smear job. <eleland/talkedits> 00:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation There is a request for a citation under Early Life, the sentence can be sourced to The Observer, May 7th 2006, The new kid in the barrio. I do not seem to be able to put this in the article, or know how. Please include if possible. There is a link I found on the internet to the article http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2006/may/07/featuresreview.review

Delete Can someone also delete the last thing added to the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez&diff=190976084&oldid=190271538 —Preceding unsigned comment added by N4GMiraflores (talk • contribs) 20:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Worthy of Inclusion?

Following a March 1, 2008 Colombian raid on FARC headquarters inside Ecuador, in which FARC leader Raul Reyes and others were killed, Colombia's national police reported that documents recovered from Reyes's computer indicate financial ties between Hugo Chavez and the FARC.[4] One message from February 2008 allegedly mentioned US$300 million in Venezuelan support for FARC. The Colombian national police did not note, however, whether Venezuela actually delivered these funds to the rebels. Another document found on Reyes's laptop appears to contain a 1992 message from Hugo Chavez, who was imprisoned in Venezuela at the time. Chavez appears to be thanking the FARC for its delivery to Chavez of approximate US$150,000 (1992 value). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.242.80 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Columbia believes it has enough evidence linking Chavez and FARC to have genocide charges brought against him by the international criminal court... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7277313.stm

yes it is, plus the fact that Interpol has investigated and found the laptop computers to be free of any manipulation, changes, etc, by the Colombian Govt. http://www.telemundodallas.com/noticias/16275736/detail.html?rss=dal&psp=noticias (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not noteworthy

Note 27: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1418 does not appear to be a source worthy of wiki standards. I would venture to say that there are quite a few sources on this page that are full of these.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.157.98 (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Venezuelanalysis has both news and opinion pieces, so you have to look at the actual source. In this case it is a professor of political science at cornell who has written several books on the subject, so I don't see the problem. Vbevins (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

External links

Canadian Monkey said he's not clear "what part of WP:EL says [some external] link can't be used". Actually, the guideline says "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified", so I'd ask why this particular link should be included. JRSP (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are some links I cut from article, I don't think they provide additional resources for researchers on the subject so I moved them here for discussion:

• Diaz, Miguel. The Threat to Democracy in Venezuela and its Implications for the Region and the United States (PDF). Center for Strategic International Studies, Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps and Narcotics Affairs. June 24, 2004.
• Ortiz, Ana Maria, and Vadum, Matthew. "The American Friends of Hugo Chavez: Dial 1-800-4-TYRANT" Capital Research Center March 2008
• Pilger, John. "Chávez is a threat because he offers the alternative of a decent society." Guardian Unlimited, May 13, 2006.
• CIA Venezuela Destabilization Memo SurfacesNovember 28th 2007

JRSP (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and Irrelevance

Under 'January 2007–present', second paragraph from the bottom it says 'At the same time the Venezuelan Government was also reported by BBC to be suing CNN'. Is this at the same time as noted in the paragraph below, which reports the same thing but in November 2007? And is the last paragraph even relevant? Isn't that just gossip? and should it be deleted? --Uwaisis (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Would like to volunteer to restructure

Does anyone else feel this article needs some restructuring? Clues that we need a plan:

• Article is way too long. I'm interested in all the subtopics related in this page, as well as in Chavéz, and I still can't stand to read it.
• Article is well over 200 references in length.
• Huge sections of timeline are not about Chavéz.
• The español language entry is half the length, with twice the content outside of the presidency timeline.
• Just like the content, much of the controversy relates to the timeline of his presidency, not Chavéz.

I'd like to see the presidential timeline simplified into 3 segments, with shorter excepts from the sub-pages. And more detail about his role in south american relations, early changes and drafting of the constitution, and the all-important demographic lines of "the popular movement" (you could read this entire article and not realize that the fundamental problem in Venezuela is that the poor are easily and readily polarized and Chavéz pushed for change at the cost of the media-controlling wealthy class). Basically, I think we should work to bring the english document in line with the spanish language one. Robbiemuffin (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Be Bold!. There is already an article on Presidency of Hugo Chávez, I think most of the material can be moved there in order to get a more concise main article. JRSP (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Dropped Authoritarian from Intro

There was an unsubstantiated declaration of Chavez as an "authoritarian socialist" in the intro. Although the nation's elections have been criticized by Chavez's opponents, he certainly hasn't shown any indication of outright authoritarianism. That's a heavy word. Joseph Stalin was an authoritarian socialist. Hugo Chavez; not so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktaylor (talk • contribs) 14:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverted to previous version which said "democratic socialism". Someone changed it to "authoritarian" in a previous edit. JRSP (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Chávez promotes a political doctrine of democratic socialism,[1] Latin American integration, and anti-imperialism." "Anti emperialism" goes way too far. For example Chávez calls kosov's prime minister a terrorist and refuses to recognize its independence[5] and does not support the Dalai Lama in the Tibetan cause [6]. That's fine, but you can't call someone like that an "anti-emperialist". - PietervHuis (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you explain why an anti-imperialist should support Kosovo and the Dalai Lama? I don't see the contradiction. Chávez often mention in his speeches he is against imperialism, BBC says he fights US imperialism[7], USA Today reports he calls for anti-imperialist unity[8] so please explain what the Dalai Lama has to do with this. JRSP (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because he calls himself an "anti-imperialist" doesn't make him one. What's an imperialist? If he doesn't even support freedom for tibetans you can't just represent him as an "anti-imperialist" because others would argue that china's "occupation" of tibet is a form of imperialism. The BBC article places the words "us imperialism" between quotations and as you can read further you can see that washington calls Chavez an imperialist even. I'm not representing my opinion that he's not an anti-imperialist, but his opponents would obviously not see him that way so it's a relative term and thus best to avoid. - PietervHuis (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The article said he promotes anti-imperialism not that he is an anti-imperialist. Multiple reliable sources support that he promotes this, and yes, this refers to what he says, we are not here to judge if this is true or not; the same thing applies to socialism, integration or whatever. True or false, the anti-imperialist discourse is an important element of Chávez public image.JRSP (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what you find maybe. "Promoting" would mean that all his policies are factual examples of anti-imperialism and they're not. If you want it in it should read like "self-aclaimed anti-imperialist" instead of presenting it as fact. - PietervHuis (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Self-aclaimed" sounds as a word to avoid. There are multiple reliable sources saying that Chávez promotes anti-imperialism so I think you should provide at least a reputable source explicitly saying this is not true. Unless you provide a source, your interpretation that ' "Promoting" would mean that all his policies are factual examples of anti-imperialism and they're not ' is original research. JRSP (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any reliable sources that said so. Only that he himself, or his fans, claim so. The bbc article says that "Venezuela is being accused of being an imperialist country" and there's others who accuse him of being an imperialist[9]. There's also many sources which consider China's handling of Tibet Imperialism[10] and Chávez supported China on this. So there's one camp which claims that Chávez promotes anti-imperialism, and another that he doesn't and instead that he even promotes imperialism. That's why the controversial phrase should be left out. - PietervHuis (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please check WP:Reliable sources. I don't think heritage.org or anarkismo.net count as "sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Anti-imperialism is a recurring theme in HC's discourse and it is important enough to be mentioned in lead. Even in the USA Today article[11], he says "They're trying to sabotage the Olympics in Beijing, and behind that is the hand of imperialism." As wikipedia editors we are not here to judge if Chávez discourse is sincere or not, or what is anti-imperialism or what is not. But multiple reliable sources support his promotion of anti-imperialism, whatever that means.[12][13][14][15][16]. JRSP (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Again none of those sources say he's an anti-imperialist, only that he considers himself to be one. He's accusing pretty much the entire world of imperialism, while supporting (what some see as) Chinese Imperialism. I've also provided you with other sources that don't see him as an anti-imperialist and as such this may not be presented as fact per WP:NPOV. If it would be presented as a fact than that would mean that "the us being an imperialist country" would also be presented as fact. That's of course a matter of debate itself. If you want it included it should read "he claims to promote anti-imperialism" and not "he promotes anti-imperialism", but leaving it out completely is probably the best for this controversial topic. - PietervHuis (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Chavez called German chancellor 'Nazi'

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,552797,00.html "Chavez Says Merkel a Political Descendant of Hitler The German government has shrugged off a verbal attack on Chancellor Angela Merkel by Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez who called her a political descendant of Adolf Hitler and stopped just short of telling her to go to hell. The two leaders might meet at an upcoming summit in Peru. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.207.163 (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor changes to opening

First off, what is known as "neo-liberalism", at least as he uses it, is basically the dominant force in the western world, and he uses it to describe conservatives as well as liberal people. This is something that members of the "socialist revolution" believe in but not many other people.

Secondly, it should say "socialism", rather than "democratic socialism". Simply not putting democratic beforehand is not saying that it isn't democratic, and besides, the Soviet Union considered itself a democracy. An example of democratic socialism is Sweden, and it's completely separate from Marxism, whereas Hugo Chavez's policies ARE inspired by Marxism, and he doesn't fit into this category. I think you would insult many people by calling Hugo Chavez a "democratic socialist", I mean, he talks about the 'socialist revolution' and the "Empire" just as much as any "communist" does. Contralya (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources to support these changes? Otherwise, I would disagree with your proposal? JRSP (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

He never talks about "democratic socialism" in his speeches, just "socialism". Look into the article about democratic socialism and how it different than soviet inspired 'communism'. Hugo Chavez gets along very well with Fidel Castro, who is a 'communist'. Hugo Chavez has often spoken of capitalism as evil. Contralya (talk) 07:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Chávez has been very explicit about his views on building socialism within the framework of democracy[17]. I don't understand your references to 'soviet inspired "comunism" ' or Fidel Castro or capitalism. Do you have some sources or is this just your personal view? Remember that WP does not allow original research. JRSP (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

LInk to Terrorism

why are we keeping HC's links to terror groups out of discussion?

http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/PressReleases/PR2008/PR200817.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellyroldan (talk • contribs) 14:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Inflation Numbers

We need to update the inflation numbers since 2005. The Economist sites inflation in Venezuela as now being over 30% a year (over 26% a year is technically hyperinflation). This undermines is socialist platform and makes the poorest Venezuelans worse off... its pretty key to his presidency and probably will be his ultimate downfall so the graphs should show this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benggriff (talk • contribs) 04:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Public Opinion

Maybe I missed it, but I really didn't see much about the public's opinion of him. Not the international community, but the people of his country. Would some please create a section about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.207.31 (talk) 03:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No because a section on public opinion isn't relevant. I don't think other presidents of the world have a 'public opinion' section on Wikipedia so why should he. We should let what has happened do the talking. Wikipedia is suppose to let people come to a concise and well informed decision about people on their acts, a section on 'public opinion' would contradict this as it would be inadvertently telling people how to feel about him. We shouldn't be telling people how others feel about him, we should be helping them feel their own thing. --Uwaisis (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Friendship with Dictators

He was friends with Saddam Hussein, like he is now with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. There are any sources were he praised this dictators ? I remember he visited Iraq in 1999 and probably his great problem with Iraq War, was because of his agreements with Saddam Hussein. He calls Bush the Devil and says he smells to sulphur, or "the greatest genocidal ever", but seems to forget that he was smelling roses when he visited Iraq in 1999 and never cared about the curds genocide.85.244.48.94 (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.. JRSP (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to propose then some references about his good relashionships with Saddam Hussein. Like it or not it's a fact.81.193.190.20 (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a solid reference?Geni 12:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the word "friendship" is excessive, but he really was the first western Head of State to visit Saddam Hussein, in 2000, after Golf War, which drew criticism from then American administration. The current article shows his good relashionship with Saddam Hussein, saying that he himself drove Hugo Chávez in Bagdhad, and openly calls for the end of the United Nations santions in Cuba. Not a single word of him about the human rights question or the curds in Iraq. He can be seen as a dubious politician, he openly fights what he sees as American imperialism, and doesn't have any problem in having good relashionships with ruthless dictators. He doesn't also criticizes other sorts of imperialism, like the Chinese and the Russian. The current article makes us understand better his reactions thowards Iraq War. [18]85.242.238.195 (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Updated economic charts

I updated the economic charts with 2006 information (2007 information is not yet available). If you click on the graph, it will go to the page for that png image, which contains a link to the XLS file that I used in 2006. However, for some reason, Wikipedia doesn't allow me to upload an XLS file anymore, so I don't know how to update that old XLS file in there. Loisel (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to Venezuela government statistics? For some reason, the WDI doesn't have any unemployment figures after 2003, and I vaguely recall that people didn't want me to use the CIA World Factbook figures.

I don't even know what the Venezuela government stats web site is. And in any case, I don't speak spanish.

Halp!

Loisel (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "EconPov" :
  • The Economist ([[February 16]] [[2006]]), [http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5526589 Venezuela: Mission Impossible,] ''The Economist'', Retrieved [[22 June]] [[2006]].
  • The Economist ([[February 16]] [[2006]]). [http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5526589 Venezuela: Mission Impossible.] ''The Economist'', Retrieved [[22 June]] [[2006]].
• "PostVoterRolls" :
  • Bronstein, H. ([[June 14]] [[2006]]), [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/14/AR2006061400486.html "Colombians in Venezuela thank Chavez for new life",] ''Washington Post'', Accessed [[22 June]] [[2006]]. Also available at [http://www.boston.com/news/world/latinamerica/articles/2006/06/14/colombians_in_venezuela_thank_chavez_for_new_life/ boston.com,] Accessed [[28 May]] [[2007]].
  • Bronstein, H. ([[June 14]] [[2006]]), [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/14/AR2006061400486.html "Colombians in Venezuela thank Chavez for new life",] ''Washington Post'', Accessed [[22 June]] [[2006]].
• "Crosshairs" :
  • ''Márquez Humberto''. (IPS [[March 9]] [[2006]]) [http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=27799 "Statements Indicate Chávez May Indeed Be in Somebody's Crosshairs".] Accessed [[21 June]] [[2006]]. Also available at [http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/venezuela/2897.html globalexchange.org]
  • ''Márquez Humberto''. (IPS [[March 9]] [[2006]]) [http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=27799 Statements Indicate Chávez May Indeed Be in Somebody's Crosshairs]. Retrieved [[21 June]] [[2006]]]
  • ''Márquez Humberto''. (IPS [[March 9]] [[2006]]) [http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=27799 "Statements Indicate Chávez May Indeed Be in Somebody's Crosshairs".] Accessed [[21 June]] [[2006]].

DumZiBoT (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Relashionship with Saddam Hussein

This part deserves more development, since it's very controversial. He visited Saddam Hussein in Iraq, in 1999. It should be mencioned if he ever showed any criticism of his regimen.81.193.220.58 (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

date mess

There was an unholy mixture of US and international date formats. Which is it to be? During the audit, I chose US, since there seemed to be slightly more of them. Buzz me if you want them clicked back again. At least our readers see consistency in the main text now. Tony (talk) 08:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the whole article needs an audit

Ouch, I see MoS breaches, I see bad prose, I see potentially serious POV, I wonder about the overall balance of the references. Let's take a quick look.

• Opening sentence: for good reasons, MOSNUM says don't use "currently". What does it mean next year? Or next decade?
• "Also" is redundant.
• This claim, in the second sentence, is referenced by an article by a Western journalist. The closest thing I can find to a supporting statement is "The Venezuelan leader went on to launch a defense of the sort of democratic socialism practiced in his country where, despite the success of a group of right wingers who overthrew him for 48 hours and proclaimed a dictatorship in 2002." Apart from the fact that the journalist's sentence is horribly ungrammatical and hard to make sense of for that reason, it's not quite the support for the claim I was looking for. It's a second-hand reference, anyway, through the Taiwan Times website, not the original Observer. The spelling isn't British; I wonder what else has been changed without our own readers' knowing it.
• Redundant "in".
• "Nation wide" is one word.
• When it says "The government of the United States claims that Chávez is a threat to democracy in Latin America.", the implication is that only or chiefly one of the most partisan, extremist and incompetent administrations ever to grace the White House is a critic of Chavez. But this is not at all the case. The lead appears very unbalanced to me.
• "In 2005 and 2006 he was named one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people." SInce little oxygen is given in the lead to either domestic and international criticism of this highy controversial figure, it appears a bit puffy to privilege (by inclusion at the opening) the point that he made it into the top 100 most influential people, as a bald statement. In fact, influence of itself is no claim to moral virtue or good governance (Hitler would have made it into the top five in the 1940s); yet in the context, it's cleverly depicted as praiseworthy in this most unsatisfactory entree.

Indeed, the opening is a forerunner to serious problems in the whole text. A makeover is necessary. Tony (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, all criticism was exercised from this article years ago and the article has been Wiki's single most glaring failure of our WP:NPOV policy for years. Not only is it thoroughly POV and unbalanced, and riddled with prose and MoS errors, it's also outdated and overly long, still using largely text that was written in 2005, well before many documented Chavez incidents. I don't expect any improvement until Wikipedians decide to take notice, which I don't expect to happen. I'm glad you stopped by on your date delinking tour though Tony (by the way, they use international date formatting in Venezuels). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I hesitate to change it to European format until the guideline for non-anglophone-country-related articles is resolved at MOSNUM, unless other editors here are keen for a prompt change. I hope for resolution at MOSNUM within a week ... Tony (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Since this article has far more serious issues than incorrectly formatted dates, while I appreciate that you caught it on your date tour, it's hardly worth focusing on the dates when the article should have a multiple issues tag and badly needs a complete rewrite, resourcing, balancing, updating, and NPOVing. Date formatting is the least of this article's concerns, and could be undertaken if the article issues are ever addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Its Fine, don't change anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.150.129 (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Incorporating material into this page

Hello all,

I am working on a group project and would like to add some material found in my research. As this page is semi-protected I am unable to. I ask for cooperation as I am a newbie to this world of wikipedia.

Hugo Chavez, the current president of the democratic socialist state of Venezuela adopted ideologies of many significant historical leaders of the world. The Latin American military leader named Simon Bolivar has been his main inspiration. “El Libertador”, inspired Chavez’s integral approach to the political blueprint of new Venezuela. Simon Bolivar’s main goal was to unify the states of Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador under one great “La Gran Colombia”. Furthermore, the unification would strengthen the states to be equal competitors with major continental powers. It would ultimately diminish the poverty stricken societies of Latin America. Simon Bolivar’s influence can be seen throughout Chavez’s platform in politics, economics, law, education, morality and duty. (1) Chavez places great emphasis on Bolivar being more than just a symbol or spirit of the Revolution but a concept that is still relevant in the current state of Venezuela. Similarities between these leaders start in their mixed race heritage. Bolivar’s mixed race “zambo” is often omitted in historical accounts. Chavez has been known to be proud of his indigenous and black roots. He has expressed that having indigenous blood means that his roots are the deepest and most authentic. (2) Moreover, their military leadership has shaped and continues to shape their commitment to protect and provide service to their nation. Both men can be considered to be the utmost patriotic figures.

1) Boudin, Chesa (2006) Venezuelan Revolution – 100 Questions, 100 Answers, New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, p 7-8. 2) Guevara, Aleida(2005) Chavez,Venezuela & The New Latin America, Melbourne, Australia: Ocean Press, p 18-19.

The above is the material I would like to incorporate throughout where suitable. Please let me know how I shall proceed with this or if there are any objections.

(CanadianChavista (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC))

All editors are encouraged to be bold, so you don't have to ask for permission, just do it. JRSP (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it also should be pointed that, unlike Simón Bolívar, Hugo Chávez is not an integral anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist, because he totally supports chinese imperialism in Tibet and denied the right to self-determination and independence of Tibet last year, in a way totally opposed to what "bolivarianism" really should be. It also should be noted that, despite Hugo Chávez claims to be a devout Catholic, that the Catholic Church exists in a clandestine way in China, except in Macao and Hong Kong, two paradises of neoliberal capitalism. Despite all this, Chávez is a keen supporter of China's authoritarian, anti-democratic and imperialist regimen.85.242.238.24 (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, are these opinions supported by reliable sources? JRSP (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I was simply stating facts. His support for Chinese imperialism is debated above and a quick search at the google proves it.85.242.236.5 (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

An extraordinary read

I check the footnotes on some of the topics, knowing the footnote cannot possibly support what has been stated and low and behold it does not. There is no balance to this, it is simply awful. Some of the subjects which come to mind are: Why has there been no mention of the tripling of the murder rate under Chavez’ time? Statistically you are more likely to be murdered or seriously assaulted on the streets of Caracas than you are as a prisoner in a US jail (sorry don’t have the footnote but just Google ‘violence, murder in Venezuela’ and you will get the drift). It is stated that ‘troops stormed Miraflores and freed Chavez’- crikey that is news to me and probably every Venezuelan who lived through it all- these pages are utter fantasy. Where is the detail of the peaceful opposition protest the day the coup took place where tens of people were gunned down in the street- never did the government investigate this. Why was Rincon bought back when he said Chavez resigned? Rincon never gave an account of this. You have to question the use of the ‘Cuban medical’ staff or Castro’s slaves- is this really Socialism where you send your people to foreign lands and pay them $20 a month? Frequent mentions are made of assassination attempts. I do not think it was reported here (I was falling asleep in the article) but it has been reported in the media that Chavez claimed a sniper tried to shoot him getting off a plan in Zulia and that the guy escaped across the border into Colombia- he was thought to have been an ex Zulia policeman. Now read that last sentence again and please ask yourself what have they been smoking! It's just the usual Castro stuff, each trying to out number the assasination attempts against them. The whole article is full of rubbish- a bit like the streets of Venezuela really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.210 (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

What is actually stated, if you cut and paste, is that 'Venezuelan soldiers loyal to Chávez...later stormed and retook the presidential palace". They were the Presidential Guard, and you can watch them do just this 34 minutes into John Pilger's 'The War on Democracy'. However, again according to the same film, Chavez was not freed from Miraflores, because he was not in Miraflores, but was helicoptered (a verb one doesn't get to use enough) in from wherever he had been taken by his kidnappers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.219.193 (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Outdated paragraph

Predictions for 2007 are outdated in 2009. BTW, did the predictions come true?

The leading business daily of Argentina, Ambito Financiero, predicted that Venezuela under Chavez in 2007 would have a "nationalized economy, out-of-control spending, government by decree, and perpetual re-election." The motion which included the provision to allow indefinite presidential re-election was voted down in national referendum in 2007. The daily also compared Chavez to King Louis XIV of France, stating his 2007 inauguration would mark "a concentration of power without precedent in Venezuela."

JRSP (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Chavez ruled by decree until mid 2008, he nationalized more Industry (Cement, electricity, phone company etc) and he calls again for a change in the constitution to have his re-election in 2012. It is also quite obvious here (i'm living in Venezuela), that he controls all (supposed to be independent) powers like juridical power (TSJ), electoral power (CNE, 4 out of 5 board members are Chavistas, supposed to be neutral and not elected by National Assembly, but appointed), created his own army (national police). So I'd say, these predictions are pretty correct, although Chavez doesn't have his re-election yet, wich was his first defeat in an election since he came to power and certainly unexpected for him. To get it now he even fails to uphold constitution and a Chavez-obedient CNE was pretty fast in helping him. Therefore the voter-registration will not be opened to register new voters (people that turned 18 between 27.11.2008, where the last election was held and 15.02.2009 when the referendum to his re-election will be held), although the constitution states clearly : you have to open the registry for 30 days for register process and after that 90 days closed before you can have any election or referendum. But all people here now, that with the crisis coming it will be too late for Chavez to ask for his re-election when money will be short in 4 months.--190.72.221.194 (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Government Anti-Semitism

I think it's worth noting how there has been a rise in anti-semitism in Venezuela since Chavez's rise to power, including government sponsorship.link. Also he frequently criticizes Israel and the US' support of Israel. Here is another article to back up his personal anti-semitism. Deeejazzy (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Your links' actual evidence seems to be mostly criticism of Israel, some dodgy cartoons, and talking to people Israel doesn't like (a dislike that may be reasonable) in a realpolitik motivated mostly by the desire to strengthen OPEC. There may still be actual anti-semitism in Venezuela, sadly, but I see little that qualifies as "government sponsorship" of it from those links. Rd232 ^talk 21:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If those links didn't convince you, how about this,that, and the other? Also, Chavez's criticisms of Israel have crossed the line into antisemitism. See the US Government's Report on Global Anti-Semitism for proper definitions of anti-semitism. I quote: "The demonization of Israel, or vilification of Israeli leaders, sometimes through comparisons with Nazi leaders, and through the use of Nazi symbols to caricature them, indicates an anti-Semitic bias rather than a valid criticism of policy concerning a controversial issue." And from "I'm feeling Lucky" on "venezuelan antisemitism" comes "Recently, in a series of public statements on Israel's war with Hezbollah, Chavez repeatedly compared Israel to the Nazis and Hitler..." If you require more proof, or a persuasive style essay, I'll be glad to work one up- I just want to see this valid criticism of Chavez in print on wikipedia. Deeejazzy (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

None of these organizations can be considered WP:RS: no editorial oversight and strong ties with Israel and/or United States. And, who's demonizing who? I wonder if this is a case of anti-semitism or anti-Chavism. JRSP (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The US State Dept is a reliable source; it just needs to be properly attributed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how reliable their definition of anti-Semitism is. It certainly doesn't conform with Wikipedia's. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

to JRSP, Any article I read will be in English, and therefore will come from US/UK, which means the organizations will have strong ties to the US. There are absolutely enough sources on the topic for it to exist, and if you don't see the issue, you're probably too close. Since you're Venezuelan, I could say that anything you write on Venezuela will naturally have bias, which isn't necessarily bad. Since anti-semitism is often a judgment call, let's try and talk about facts instead. Clearly he has been quoted (see the articles) comparing Israel to Nazi-Germany. According to wikipedia's [antisemitism] (see under the last bullet point of the section "forms"), and the US State Dept, this is considered "demonizing Israel" and is considered antisemitic. I feel through your argument that you are being very defensive, as if we're accusing you/ your country of being anti-Semitic, please understand we're not calling Venezuelans anti-Semitic, we're just stating the facts. I would also appreciate it if you would withdraw from this discussion, since you seem to be so personally affected. Deeejazzy (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that JRSP should withdraw. If one believes certain people act like Nazis, it's only logical for one to compare them to Nazis. It has nothing to do with prejudice against or hostility toward Jews; it applies to everyone. If the US State Department wants to come out with ridiculous definitions like this, well, that's politics. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Deeejazzy said "Any article I read will be in English, and therefore will come from US/UK, which means the organizations will have strong ties to the US." Discuss. Rd232 ^talk 23:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that better sources would be needed. Jim Lobe has written an article about neo-con attacks on Chavez as an anti-semite http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=8390 which I think puts the issue in perspective. Also, the State Department definition is not very helpful. It distinguishes between "objective criticism of Israeli policies and anti-Semitism". Similarly, criticism of Chavez is not necessarily directed against Venezuelans. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, the criticism section is horribly worded and shows a command of English worse than a second grader. I'm usually pretty meek, but if there is no resolution here, I may have to be bold. And to discuss my not being able to read another foreign language- I'm American, which should pretty much explain it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deeejazzy (talk • contribs) 22:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The criticism section is poor, but that just reflects the poverty of the criticism article, and improving that should probably be the starting point. My "Discuss" remark quoted a three-part sentence from you which included a number of logical flaws; your inability to read languages other than English wasn't the issue. Rd232 ^talk 10:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

C'mon! When a nation, such as Israel, carries out a program of ethnic cleansing, then comparisons to the Nazis seem reasonable. It can be argued that Israel's treatment of its Palestinian minority amounts to ethnic cleansing. It's funny; anti-Semitism is a disease of totalitarianism and the Right, yet, Rightists always scream "anti-Semitism" when Israel is criticised. The supporters of the far-Right junta of George W were very good at this. And it seems that this hasn't changed. 220.233.176.162 (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel isn't going into cities, and shooting everyone in the head. This is what Nazis did. Israel is trying to do a Regime change, and the current regime just likes using human shields (war crime) so as to gain sympathy with the media, which neglects to show what the Palestinians are saying to each other / the Arab world. Also, I'd claim criticism of Israel is anti-semitism, while criticism of its policies are not. However, it is accepted that the "demonization" of Israel is anti-semitism. Demonization would be like if you were to say something like- Israel is the only country that could get away with massacring a whole country with no repercussions... etc." This is because Israel has killed ~ 1000 Palestinians while targeting military targets, and conflicts like in Darfur have claimed over 500,000 lives, yet aren't criticized by you in nearly the same way. Deeejazzy (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Rd232 ^talk 16:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

a reliable WP:RS: Centro Simon Wiesenthal: "The Simon Wiesenthal Center strongly condemned antisemitc statements by the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez Frías, who had said that “the world has wealth for all, but some minorities, the descendants of the same people that crucified Christ, have taken over all the wealth of the world”. Chávez made this statements during a celebration of Christmas, last Dec. 24, at a rehabilitation center." --84.137.90.167 (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

This article uses Venezuelanalysis.com extensively, which is a clear violation to NPOV and RS. Venezuelanalysis has received funding from the Chavez government, its founder (Martin Sanchez) is Chavez's Consul in Chicago and its editor (Gregory Wilpert) is married to Chavez's Consul in NY, ergo as independent as an official site can be. If it is to be used as a source its evident conflict of interests need be disclaimed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alekboyd (talk • contribs) 15:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I could only find one reference to Venezuelanalysis.com, supporting the statement "RCTV is still broadcasting via cable and satellite and is widely viewable in Venezuela". JRSP (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to search in the wikitext to find them all. I make it no 26 (Ellner 2005) and 199 (the RCTV you found), plus 115, 133, 157, 174, 204, 207, 208: a total of 9 from 226 references. (Addendum: based on this version of the article, which is the current one at time of writing.) Most of them are (I think) from the VA 'news' section rather than 'opinion/analysis'. As to NPOV violation of venezuelanalysis: er, no. Yes it clearly has a selectivity and POV (which I make "sympathetic but mildly critical"), but on Venezuela even newswires and academics do. VA doesn't too badly I think: eg ref 208 ([19]) is about an Indian protest against Chavez; 207 ([20]) talks about challenges as well (towards the end). I havent' time go through them all. One VA interview I came across recently is quite interesting about the challenges: [21]. Rd232 ^talk 13:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

As to VA's funding, it says it's supported by grassroots groups such as the "Fundación para la Justicia Económica Global". There is no evidence that Sanchez is/was a Consul (even if he was the founder), and Wilpert, an academic, is one of 6 principal contributors to VA, so his marriage to a Venezuelan activist who was for a time the NY Consul isn't that big a deal. It shows his sympathies, but that's obvious anyway from a cursory glance at his writing. Rd232 ^talk 13:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Sanchez was a Consul... Evidence From Venezuela's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. However I have not been able to find evidence from Venezuela's Official Registry (Gaceta Oficial) on Martin Sanchez initial designation as Chavez's Consul in Chicago. I wouldn't want to think that he violated both Venezuelan and American legistation. Perhaps JRSP can clarify the point.

...so his marriage to a Venezuelan activist who was for a time the NY Consul isn't that big a deal... Evidence that Gregory Wilpert's wife is Chavez's Consul in New York from Venezuela's Official Registry

Martin Sanchez on the source of Aporrea's funding: We and several other alternative and community based media are about to receive in a few weeks a grant from the Ministry of Culture set aside to help grassroots media. So, saying that Aporrea "is closely associated with the state", has some -although small- degree of truth, but we must say that the editorial decisions, and news that we cover are not dictated by anybody other than by our volunteers. See here Alekboyd (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)AlekboydAlekboyd (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Alek, your arguments sound like shooting the messenger. My experience with Venezuelanalysis is that when they speak about facts, the info can be verified; they might have their bias but they don't lie. If the information provided by venezuelanalysis is reliable and they have editorial independence, it doesn't matter where they funds come from. Furthermore, many articles from Maracaibo's Panorama can only be found (translated) in the venezuelanalysis site (Panorama doesn't archive news) so I think they can be a valuable source. JRSP (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So let me see if I can get this straight JRSP: when I speak about facts that can be cross checked and verified, that are not lies, such as Chavez's stake in Smartmatic, Maisanta list, VIO, Venezuelanalysis, Gregory Wilpert, Eva Golinger, conflict of interests, etc., I can not be quoted because of my bias , but Venezuelanalysis can because they translate news from Panorama? Is that the best you can do to defend your clearly untenable position? It matters a great deal where the funds come from, in fact that is one of the overarching arguments that those on your side use to wholesale disqualification of opposing opinions. Again this is an encyclopedia that's aiming at objectivity, neutrality, reliability of sources and so on, mind you do I need to copy here what those Wiki-principles are? My experience with Venezuelanalysis... It is not for you to decide which source is trustworthy and which one it isn't, for then Wikipedia will become just a propaganda outlet like Aporrea or Venezuelanalysis. If these sources are to be used, they need to be clearly identified. As stated elsewhere I don't see why you just flatly refuse to see the merits of providing the whole picture so that interested parties can make their own minds. Martin Sanchez is an employee of Chavez. Gregory Wilpert is married to an employee of Chavez and the site he edits receives funding from the Chavez regime. Under such circumstances you can not argue that they are independent sources, and I won't insult people's intelligence by explaining what is and isn't an independent source.Alekboyd (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)AlekboydAlekboyd (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Alek, let's focus on the article. Where in the article you can find a doubious statement sourced on venezuelanalisis? JRSP (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Setting aside the obvious bias in the sources used in this article when it was written years ago (clearly VenAnalysis is a highly partisan source as are several of the other authors mentioned), the entire article needs to be updated, trimmed and revamped to reflect current reliable sources and give due weight to all issues. It remains-- as it has since it was written-- an unbalanced, one-sided, outdated account for all of the reasons well discussed many times in archives. Attempts to update, trim and give due weight to reliable sources in the article are met with resistance. The only change that was allowed several years ago was cutting criticism to a POV fork, and as soon as the criticism was cut, work stopped. The question is not which information from Venanlysis is dubious, but why the article doesn't reflect due weight of other, more reputable and unbiased reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia I must say that I concur wholeheartedly with your argument. Years ago there weren't enough English sources of information about Venezuela. That prompted people from all sides of the political divide to start reporting what was happening, however almost none were/are journalists. Opposition and chavista bloggers share a few treats, one of them being a clearly identifiable political bias. As far as information in English is concerned, one could argue that opposition blogs are written by Venezuelan folks whereas chavista blogs, such as Venezuelanalysis, are written mostly by non-Venezuelans whose independence is compromised, such as Gregory Wilpert or Eva Golinger. However much these people are entitled to their opinions it is a mistake, a violation to Wikipedia principles and dishonest, let alone a disservice to readers, to present them as independent, trustworthy sources when factual evidence shows they are anything but. In fact, I will quote from JRSP None of these organizations can be considered WP:RS: no editorial oversight and strong ties with Israel and/or United States. And, who's demonizing who? I wonder if this is a case of anti-semitism or anti-Chavism. JRSP (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Therefore, using JRSP's own argument, which is impossible to disagree with, same criteria must be applied to sources that have strong ties and are funded by the Chavez government. Wikipedia is not meant to be an anti-Chavez encyclopedia, likewise I reckon we could all agree that it must not be a pro-Chavez one. As you have rightly stated SandyGeorgia, there are plenty of truly independent, reputable and professional sources to quote from and use nowadays, starting from main media organizations to Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International. Hence re-writing the article, reflecting a close resemblance to reality, should not be difficult at all, and those editors who meet this proposition with resistance must either come out of the closet and state their interests or refrain from editing these pages.Alekboyd (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)AlekboydAlekboyd (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean this Human Rights Watch? The one with the controversy about their recent Venezuela report, for instance? Nice example. ... I'd put more faith in what AI has to say, but then I'm a member... Anyway, as has been said, on political issues like this, especially for Venezuela, every source has a POV, be it the anonymous AP reporters or Chicago Tribune editorialists, etc. Sometimes it's more obvious, sometimes less. Best we can do is try to back up facts from multiple sources, the best sources we can manage; if necessary clarifying disagreement without taking sides (WP:NPOV). Using more academic sources would help, but there aren't that many, they're not as up-to-date, and even their authors typically have POV (but peer review and academic reputation helps). Rd232 ^talk 15:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That's indeed the Human Rights Watch I referred to, mind you the same one that "In the more than twenty years that Human Rights Watch has worked in Latin America, no government has ever expelled our representatives for our work, not even the right-wing dictatorships guilty of far more egregious abuses than those committed by Chávez." see here Glad to hear that, as a member, you put more faith in AI. Perhaps you should include this in the article "Venezuela: Attacking American Convention on Human Rights jeopardizes everybody's welfare" Amnesty International link. As per the 'controversy' there wasn't such a thing, just a silly attempt by some apologists of Chavez, some of them like Gregory Wilpert with huge conflicts of interests, to refute reality. Human Rights Watch, which serious people considered a highly reputed organization, concluded that Wilpert's et al letter was nothing more than baseless allegations disseminated by unhelpful critics see HRW's reply hereAlekboyd (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)AlekboydAlekboyd (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You cite this letter [22] in an attempt to support HRW? The letter which dismisses a detailed rebuttal [23] of HRW's defence [24] of the original criticism [25] by essentially saying "pff, you're not worth talking to"? Hmm. Not sure what to say that. Rd232 ^talk 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You can cite as many replies from Chavez's apologists as you like, Human Rights Watch's track record, reputation, credibility, objectivity and impartiality are beyond question, and certainly not tainted, as that of Gregory Wilpert and other unhelpful "critics who opt instead to disseminate baseless allegations." Besides, lest you disclose your credentials, your views do not carry same weight than those of HRW or AI.Alekboyd (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)AlekboydAlekboyd (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Well I can see you've taken the time to read both sides of the HRW discussion, and aren't just parroting in shouty boldface the HRW line.</sarcasm> My views are not the issue, the facts are. Fact is HRW have chosen not to engage with a serious criticism (the detailed response to their initial reply). If this does not damage their reputation in your eyes perhaps you ought to reexamine your own partiality. Furthermore, whatever their overall reputation, each particular report is written by particular people based on particular sources, and needs to be judged on its merits, even if the initial presumption is that it's good. Example: you buy bread from the supermarket assuming it isn't mouldy, but if at home your wife starts eating it and says it's mouldy, you don't say "impossible, they've never sold us mouldy bread before!". No, you look, smell, and judge on the merits. And if necessary, send it back. Rd232 ^talk 17:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

However the ACHR issue is one that should probably be followed up. From what I've seen it does seem a problem, arising ultimately from a political interference with the legal system back in 2003 (which in general is far too common in Latin America, as it was in pre-1999 Venezuela). Though the Supreme Court justified its 2008 position on the basis that it would otherwise have caused constitutional problems, which may just be blather of course.[26] Rd232 ^talk 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I repeat my question, Alek: Where in the article can you find a doubious statement sourced on venezuelanalisis? JRSP (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(@ alekboyd) Quite. Stop moaning about a particular source in general (moaning which can be done about any source, and which for VA I think (Alekboyd) you're exaggerating in terms of importance and in terms of evidence for your claims) and start trying to show inaccuracy. The former just fills up talk pages, the latter we can do something about to improve the article. Rd232 ^talk 15:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A dose of your own medicine will do you good JRSP: "None of these organizations can be considered WP:RS: no editorial oversight and strong ties with Israel and/or United States..." Change Israel and/or United states with Chavez and/or his regime. I am merely referring to Wikipedia principles, the same ones you so readily apply to sources that undermine your simplistic and revisionist view of contemporary politics in Venezuela. Again, if you have issues with those principles, take them with its creators, not with me.Alekboyd (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)AlekboydAlekboyd (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Issue isn't the principles. Wikipedia is not a forum: start talking about how to change the article or go back to blogging. Rd232 ^talk 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have provided enough evidence to prove that use of Venezuelanalysis and Venezuela Information Office is a violation to WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. I agree with JRSP about WP:NOT. Therefore all remarks/cites/opinions coming from biased sites that receive funding from the Hugo Chavez regime must be clearly identified.Alekboyd (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)AlekboydAlekboyd (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hardly. IMO Venezuelanalysis passes WP:RS, certainly for the news section. You disagree, but you've yet to demonstrate any inaccuracy. And WP:NPOV and WP:NOR apply to WP articles and WP editor behaviour, not external sources. Rd232 ^talk 17:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Two suggestions. First, since you've got such a thing about Venezuelanalysis.com, start an article about them (it'll be interesting to see if your various claims can be sourced to a sufficient standard for inclusion in WP; some obviously yes, some maybe not). Then you can edit each VA ref to point to that article. Second, pick the most egregiously erroneous statement sourced to VA that you can find and bring it here for discussion. Rd232 ^talk 17:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems that those supporting the Venezuelan President in these pages have as much of a problem respecting Wikipedia:CIV principles as their iconic hero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.170.44 (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean (from WP:CIV) "Quoting another editor out-of-context in order to give the impression that he or she hold views they do not hold, or in order to malign them"? JRSP (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)