![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
To state the findings of opinion polls is not biased. Perhaps the phrase "unassailable lead" is a bit strong to some, but it is enclosed in quotation marks and attributed to the BBC, a reputable organization renowned for its factually accurate reporting. Given the organization's history and reputability, there is no reason for us to believe that the BBC is exaggerating the truth when it says that Chavez's lead in incontestible and clear-cut. If contradictory opinion polls are found, they can be certainly be included; until then, we should assume that the BBC's interpretation of the opinion polls is neutral and factually accurate.
Nor is it redundant to state the findings of the opinion polls, for the opinions and observations of Time are distinct to opinion polls conducted on the ground in Venezuela. Polls are much more neutral and credible than the speculation of news organizations, and, in this case, they serve to vindicate the findings of Time magazine.
-- WGee 19:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I am really, really for it I described in my user page my definition and difference so that Sandy can see that it is not some arbitrary definition ;) Granted what Mateo is doing is modifying the prose so that is neutrally worded as oposed to POV loaded, which is in itself a very positive step. Flanker 21:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
My fears about the inclusion of a second source that speculates about HC's chances for re-election have been confirmed; today we have a third poll. Surprise! It falls back into the old oh-yeah-well-this-source-says-something-else pattern. The future likelihood of X,Y, or Z is not even material for an encyclopedia. I now think that *zero references to that stuff is the correct number. Send it to wikinews.
I'd love to Be Bold but I also don't want to start a revert war. I'd like some people to read these notes and just say "Mateo, you seem pretty trustworthy, go ahead and do these edits". That would be simple and sweet; much better than getting into a donnybrook over every individual suggestion. All comments are appreciated, though. Man, I love wikipedia.
Chavez article notes:
These notes -- I hope -- are in accord with my Principles for Editing Controversial Topics, which you can read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mateo_LeFou
"what he terms anti-imperialism" I would omit 'what he terms'. The fact that this is Chavez's view is established by the use of "his vision of" earlier in this sentence.
"orchestrating a failed 1992 coup d'état" I would change to 'the unsucessful coup d'etat' largely for readability. If people need the year they can find it. Also, doublecheck that he "orchestrated" it rather than just "participated in" it.
"on promises of aiding Venezuela's poor majority" I would change to "by promising to aid Venezuela's poor majority", and only if it's widely-accepted that this was the decisive factor in his being elected. "On promises of aiding" is slightly clumsy.
"Chávez's far-reaching reforms have evoked exceptional controversy in Venezuela and abroad, receiving both criticism and praise. Venezuelans are split between those who say he has empowered the poor and stimulated economic growth, and those who say he is autocratic and has mismanaged the economy. Some foreign governments view Chávez as a threat to global oil prices and regional stability, while others welcome his bilateral trade and reciprocal aid agreements." This is an excellent graf, even if Sandy wrote it. ;) The controversial aspects of Chavez's programs are introduced without editorializing; the best arguments of both sides are summarized with clarity and efficiency.
""Bolivarianism," inspired by the Pan-Americanist philosophies of 19th-century Venezuelan revolutionary" I would change to "'Bolivarianism,' named after the 19th-century Venezuelan revolutionary..." at the unfortunate cost of a link to "Pan-Americanist", for basic readability. I would also cut "the influence of Peruvian dictator Juan Velasco, and the teachings of various socialist and communist leaders" to keep it concise.
The baseball and poetry stuff is interesting, but disrupts the flow. I'd rearrage, putting it in a separate graf preceding the one it's presently in. Once we open the Bolivarian can of worms, the article should focus on political theory and activity. For "narrative" reasons.
"he was first acknowledged by his peers for his fiery lecturing style" I would change to "where his fiery lecturing style made an impact" or something like that. "Acknowledged by his peers" has some pro-Chavez bias (still with me, Sandy?), indicating (truly or falsely) that he started acquiring accolades at this time.
btw, my asides to Sandy are all in good fun. I hope we can collaborate and fix this incredibly-funky article. If you and I can bury the hatchet, this will be FA again; that's what I want!
"unusually radical critique of Venezuelan government and society" radical is by definition unusual. Pick one.
"ive army units under Chávez's command barreled into urban Caracas" Barreled is loaded, and is also spelled wrong. I'd say "moved into urban Caracas"
The graf beginning "Chávez held the loyalty of less than 10%" is pretty problematic. "Plotters" is somewhat loaded. Relatively unversed, I'd hesitate to rewrite this, but it would probably say "Though civilian aid enabled the rebel forces to take control of Valencia, Maracaibo, and Maracay, Caracas remained unattainable. This was largely due to weak support in the Venezuelan military, and to the failed attempt to broadcast prerecorded tapes encouraging a general call for a mass civilian uprising against Perez." With one citation.
"Chavez, alarmed..." is another excellent graf.
"Chávez went on to win the Carter Center-endorsed 1998 presidential election on December 6, 1998 with 56% of the vote." Hm... there's something defensive about incorporating the Carter Center endorsement, phrased this way. I'd write something like "Chavez won the 1998 election blahblahblah. Though there were some allegations of election fraud the results were endorsed by the Carter Center." Same facts, different presentation.
Man, this article is long. It's worth it, though! Press on!
1999: Economic Crisis "set his eyes upon" change to "eyed"? "This civilian-military program was launched as "Plan Bolivar 2000," whose scope included road building..." change to "which included road building..." Weird use of "whose" has always been a pet peeve of mine, sorry.
"The plan faltered at the end of 2001 with accusations and revelations of corruption by military officers, including both military officers who later rebelled against the president in April 2002 and officers linked to the president" change to ""The plan faltered at the end of 2001 amid revelations of corruption by military officers" for concision. If corruption was revealed, 'accusations' is unnecessary. The rest is run-on-ish.
"in the hopes of garnering elevated oil prices" change to "in the hopes of elevating oil prices"
"These agreements had allowed the corporations to pay in taxes as little as 1% of the tens of billions of dollars in revenues they were earning from the Venezuelan oil they were extracting..." change to "These agreements provided substantial tax benefits to the oil companies." The inclusion of these figures reflects some pro-Chavez bias.
"by mid-1999, Chávez was incensed by his administration's setbacks in enacting" change to "by mid-1999, Chávez was incensed by setbacks to his administration's enacting"
"The constitutional referendum passed with a CNE-audited 72% "yes" vote" Again, defensive inclusion of CNE.
The rest of the new constitution stuff is pretty clean; the mudslide graf at the end is funky. It has some anti-Chavez bias ("claimed the lives of an estimated 30,000 people. Critics claim Chávez was distracted by the referendum") and pro-Chavez bias ("Chávez personally led the relief effort afterwards"). These things are not false; but their incluson here strikes me as an attempt to exploit a tragedy to ennoble/degrade Chavez.
2000-2001 Relection: See, here is where it makes sense to introduce the Carter Center's supervision/review of the election results. They are an important piece of the puzzle at this juncture.
Dang, I need some sleep...more later. Mateo LeFou 06:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Next, for Mateo, to the second problem with the article (after the verbosity and size, and failure to use Summary Style). You should be aware of how the "Criticism" article came to be (you might want to read the Criticism AfD). It was originally created because this article was too long, and all sections were going to be summarized to Summary Style. After I summarized Criticism, summary was halted. WGee changed his mind after the negative content was removed, which in effect, created a POV fork, with one little section of negative content, and a massively oversized article with a pro-Chavez bias. There should be no criticism section: for the article to be balanced, all sides of the story should be presented throughout, in context, preserving flow and balance. There is no reason for a separate Criticism section, relegated to a small section at the bottom of the article. It is only there because editing by bullying, rather than consensus, relegated anything negative about Chavez to a secondary place in the article. All sides of the story should be woven into the text, throughout. The article needs structural changes, not minute adjustments to wording. If your intent is to fine tune wording, leaving a very unbalanced article, the article will remain POV. You should know that we were within days of removing the POV tag until the Summary Style work halted. Sandy 17:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Some material of the Presidency section could be moved to the daughter article Presidency of Hugo Chávez. The daughter article is intended to be the place for details while the main article section should summarize that article. However, present situation is that the 2006 subsec is present in the main article but not in the daughter. We need to trim the article it is already 100Kb+ JRSP 17:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't realized there were so many daughter articles, I think we can yank section 4 (Presidency) and restructure or remove 5 (Impact of presidency). I propose new, concise section text beginning with:
"The Chavez presidency has been one of the most event- and controversy-filled periods of Venezuelan history. A new constitution has been approved; a coup and couter-coup have both succeeded, resulting the shortest presidency ( Carmona's) of Venezuela's history; a constitutional recall has failed; and numerous far-reaching economic programs (the " Bolivarian Missions") have been initiated. While the long-term results of these cannot be known yet, they clearly represent a dramatically different strategy than that of previous administrations. Chavez has also been prominent on the world stage, especially as an influential personality and outspoken critic of neoliberal globalization."
There obviously needs to be more -- as per JRSP the presidency is the definitive section here -- but I believe this is appropriate summary style. I'm going for a sorta wishy-washy solution: eliminating the need for copious references by saying only what is obvious, e.g. Chavez's economic programs are arguably great, arguably awful, but definitely "far-reaching". etc.
If you think I'm on the right track, I can do a similar redux of most the subsections that have spawned daughter articles and put the drafts in here. Chavez and the media is almost concise enough, but the third graf in that section is pretty off-topic and unnecessary. In fact I'm taking that graf out now Mateo LeFou 14:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Boy do I hate the lead on this. The 12 year term-limit question isn't relevant to 2006. Now that we got opinion-poll cruft out of there, my text would be: "Chavez is campaigning for re-election in December, and has also announced a Venezuelan bid to win a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council..." Subsequent text implies that all opposition to the Venezualan bid comes from Washingtonian puppetry; this is biased. Subsequent subsequent text implies that all support is bought with gifts or otherwise trumped-up. Guys! There's gambling going on in this casino! I propose we find another significant event of '06 to mention in order to pad out this section, or remove it entirely. After the security council bid fails or succeeds, we can summarize a couple of opinions about why it went that way. Mateo LeFou 15:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Will add here as many as I can find, all updated(check detailed poll results in the lower part):
Institute for Data Analysis (don't know) gives him 60% excellent and good and 80% if you add average to good approval rating [3]
The only big name oposition pollsters I am missing is Datos and Alejandro and Sejias. Will add more as I find them. Flanker 03:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The following comment was origanally posted on Talk:Israel-Venezuela relations:
Preferably, I would like to see all biased secondary sources removed from the all of these Hugo Chavez–related articles, unless they are used to relay statistics or quotations from a primary source. Academic publications (such as International Affairs by the Chatham House ) and similarly reputable sources are the only things that should be cited. Academic essays are peer reviewed; have reasonable, rational criticisms; and do not resort to sensational language to convey their theses. Further, academic essays are selected for publication usually because they are deemed to be vitally important to their fields; thus, they tend analyze the broad picture and ignore superfluous details and statistics. Other sources are acceptable as well, as long as they are not overtly biased.
So, in essence, I would like to see only non-biased sources in these articles. That would not mean an absence of criticism, however, because more or less neutral sources (e.g., Amnesty and the Chatham House) do discuss criticisms. The difference is that these neutral sources focus on deep, broad and intriguing criticisms, rather than on sensationally-phrased accusations regarding specific news events. If, however, it is absolutely necessary to refer to a biased news agency (like The Economst, for example) in order to gain the critics' POV on a particular event, make sure that their assertion is recapitulated in encyclopedic language.
-- WGee 04:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
From article:
I will be glad to expand it to make the relevance more clear to those who don't seem to get it, but then you'll complain about overkill. Your choice. I personally think it is the single most relevant appraisal of what was going on in the international media wrt Chavez until about 2004, because the international media simply was not paying any attention to what was happening in Venezuela. This article (or the Media article, can't remember which) previously had unfounded and unsourced allegations of anti-Chavez bias in the international media during the early 2000 years. The media wasn't paying attention, except for the rare WSJ article, the NYT pro-Chavez reports from the Juan Forero, and more regular reporting from the BBC. If you want me to expand the content to make the relevance more clear, I can do that, but I think Naim's appraisal is the most accurate description of what was happening in the international media as Chavez consolidated power. Sandy 17:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I have just re-read the referenced article, and it contains quite a bit of useful analysis, albeit not entirely impartial. It does not, however, analyze Chavez and the media. Not at all. The "compete for attention line" in context, reads:
...making it clear that it is the attention of the policymakers, not the media, that is referred to.
This is one of several excellent points in the article, which has as its true subject not Chavez and the Media but (essentially) few episodes better illustrate the limits of US power than the outmanoeuvring of Uncle Sam by Fidel in a country that is one of the largest suppliers of oil to the US.
In my opinion a summary of this article would be a great lead for "Hugo Chávez presidency" in the page United_States-Venezuela_relations. Except that the lead paragraph there is already relatively good.
Again, I think the fact that it does not belong here is patently obvious Mateo LeFou 22:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm .... maybe it is time for me to get actively involved once more with this article ... just like I did last year around November - December .... Oh! But that was when both pro-Chavez and anti-Chavez editors worked together to bring the article to FA status. If pro and anti Chavez editors could then agree on an article that became FA, it should even be easier to agree now when it is not even a FAC. Just a thought. ;-) Anagnorisis 16:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I perversely believe the articles are better and more reliable now than they were when the main article had FAC status. Thanks largely to the persistent battle between the two groups of editors. The constant refining of wording and sources has meant that everything is being analysed to a finer and finer degree. If you look at the article before Xmas, it was too loose and full of weasel words and weak claims. Although the personal temperature has risen considerably between editors which is a shame, I actually believe that both the articles and the talk page banter represent as informed and interesting dialogue as one is likely to find on Chavez anywhere in the English speaking media! Sorry to take some enjoyment from your discomforts guys! All I can offer as advice is to keep up the hyper analysis of every source and don't get too bogged down in personalities of other editors. I hope to check changes as much as I can - my own POV, for what it's worth, is that I have certain broad sympathies with Chavez's stated goals, but fear the almost spiritual influence of Castro on Chavez which could cause problems for many, including Cubans.-- Zleitzen 17:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the old consensual work was achieved because we were willing to compromise just so that the article wouldn't go too much in the other direction. I think we feared the article would end up being FA without being neutral enough. One side feared it would have too much criticism, and the other too much praise. Thus, the pro-Chavez guys were just happy pushing to remove all unsourced and obvious POV criticism, without this meaning the article having to include their own POV praise of Chavez; and on the other hand, tha anti-Chavez group were happy by just removing all flowery praise. Basically we agreed that if the info could be supported by sources, then it would go in -of course using neutral language (this was at times trickier than deciding what to include and what not). The other thing that helped a lot was that we got lot of help from editor Silence, who helped copyedit the article (btw, he is an excellent copyeditor, but likes to get involved only during the FA review process). In the end, it is not that difficult to agree on the facts that are sourced -what is more difficult is to agree on the exact language. If editors really care about the article and about informing the reader, sooner or later they will agree on what to have and what not; however, if it all about egos or about having fun and trolling .... well, then it will be a long process. Anagnorisis 19:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
What might it take for it to reach FA again?
Sorry for answering a question you asked of Anagnorisis, Flanker, but since I'm a very active reviewer at both FAR and FAC, I felt qualified. Sandy 20:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I know you are qualified and appreciate your input, that said the FA process really left a sour taste in my mouth, I have turned my attention in trying to make the best encyclopedic article posible (ie it explains the situation the best to a layman) as opposed to a specific rulset of FA which I find even more invasive and arbitrary than typical wikipedia policy. But if both miraculously coincide with little effort I would not complain. Flanker 04:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Copied from above:
continue to believe that Foreign policy should be realigned according to area of policy focus, and expanded: Could you expand on this? Flanker 18:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Source discussing two areas of foreign policy focus: 1) reaching out to countries who have been isolated by U.S. foreign policy and 2) part of Venezuela's campaign for a non-permanent seat on the United Nations' Security Council. [10]
Intereference in affairs of other Latin American countries:
Sandy 22:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
More news from today explaining his current foreign policy focus:
Sandy 13:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a couple of very short articles (not marked as stubs): Chavismo and Chavista. Please check these articles, perhaps they could be merged in some other place JRSP 14:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted Flanker's last change for the following reasons:
Actually WP:V and WP:RS encourage the use of primary sources. The editor who performed these deletions misunderstands Wikipedia policy. Allegations of biased sources are a different matter, but I suggest restoring all citations that were blanked merely because the source was primary. Durova 16:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I received the following at my talk page:
I tried to create a good encyclopedia, even going so far as to making sure people understand Venezuela, the source I link is a verifiable opposition source documenting a 140% growth in income in the poorest sectors of society, I could quote that it is right there, but instead as always chose to adjust it for inflation showing an 80% REAL growth. The irony is that it was the same as before only it was 55% growth (this was an update on that data from the same source). (Just my opinion: it is wonderful news that real income is growing so fast so steady).
It seems that even when I do simple additions and multiplications to show a more realistic and less positive result it will not be tolerated.
As for the use of primary sources it is allowed in Wikipedia, however if you prefer Sandy we can use the Datanalisis quote from the economist showing a doubling of income among strata E. From another opposition pollster. Flanker 19:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The Guardian: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/300806Ch%E1vez.htm " US accused of bid to oust Chávez with secret funds"] -- Striver 23:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
More balanced reports:
Sandy 04:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Unless anyone disagrees, I'd like to archive Table of Contents 1 - 30. I will leave the POV list in archives, so it will no longer show on the talk page, but we know where it is.
Sandy
04:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Brain dead and brainwashed oppressed people unable to elevate their minds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.48.144.3 ( talk • contribs)
News to be added to the President for Life section:
We currently have:
But recent news from Caracas1830 indicates that he is now promising the referendum, even though the opposition has not boycotted the elections:
These need to be merged and updated: we should now be able to delete the silliness about him denying his claims to president for life. We now have his exact intentions, more clearly stated in the Spanish version than in the English press.
Sandy 12:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Also reported in Forbes:
Sandy 13:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Report from MercoSur, President for Life, sending buddy Rodriguez to Cuba:
Announced in Qatar press, Chavez's plans for Venezuela:
" ... his new presidential term would mark a new phase of his economic and political plan, to transform Venezuela into the Venezuelan Socialist Republic. ... “Now, between 2007 to 2021, we have 14 years to plant, deepen the roots and extend the revolution in all directions so that Venezuela becomes the Socialist Bolivarian Republic in every way, for true equality, liberty — a democracy that is deep, of the people, participatory and proactive,” he said.
He outlined the plan, which he named after Simon Bolivar, liberator of Venezuela and much of South America. “One: a new socialist ethic; two, a socialist mode of production, a socialist economy; three, a revolutionary heroic democracy where the power of the people will be the maximum power of the republic; four, supreme social joy; five, a new national geopolitic, decentralised development, development in the fields and development in the cities; six, a new international geopolitic, a multipolar world, a balanced world; seven, Venezuela as an energetic world power, a world oil power,” he said.
... he named his plan “The National and Socialist Plan of Simon Jose Antonio de la Santisima Trinidad Bolivar y Palacio,” Bolivar’s full name. "
There is, in a nutshell, Chavez's plan for Venezuela; a socialist country with a president for life. It all needs to be included in the article. Sandy 15:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
It was Chavez and his party who drafted and passed the current constitution that prohits 2 reelections. His willingness to change his own laws to suit his present needs supports the president for life theory, it is only a matter of time. Prime Minister of Canada for
Why are you POV editors continuously reverting my edits. You claim that they are "my opinions"? What are you talking about? There is no opinion or speculation of mine in there. All I have done is state in a condensed form the claims in those sources. There is nothing in there that has come from my mind. Your deletions are vandalism, and I will continue to place my edits back in until you explain to me what Im doing wrong, instead of just sending me this garbage rhetoric to my userpage without actually explaining anything. Can we just have some maturity here please for God's sake. I don't care if this annoys you. You are the ones being irresponsible here, and as I said before you are not going to stop me from placing my edits until we straighten this out. I have followed the rules for editing on wikipedia, and have done nothing wrong.
-User:60.234.157.64
First, I apologize for putting this photograph up without giving this page more consideration given the controversial subject. I put this image up not as a partisan--As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out with Chavez--but as someone who went to go see a free circus on Coney Island on Labor Day. Circus Amok--see Jennifer Miller--is an award-winning production that has received grants for its work. In their act, they were illustrating the differences between the South American Presidents, and our own. Our own President's record did not look as favorable as the South Americans, at least for in terms of what they attempt to do for their own people. That's besides the point. I think it is relevant to this page because of of a high-profile act and that Chavez is obviously influencing artistic expression (that is government-funded, mind you). That's relevant. Besides, it's an interesting photograph that I make a bet people would find interesting to view, and this is great page to do so. It adds dimension that simple figurative photographs do not, on their own. I request it be resurrected, please. You all will note I took pains to write a neutral caption. -- DavidShankBone 17:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I have to read Hugo Chavez main article more, but I would like to see it on both pages. Context for the main page could perhaps be done as short paragraph about Chavez and New York City. First, because of the sizeable Latino (and Venezuelan) populace here; second, because Citgo, at his behest, gave breaks to poor people in NYC for heating fuel; and third, that performance itself, which was funded with an NEA-grant and has won awards. That could go in the New York paragraph. What do you think? Or is there already? -- DavidShankBone 19:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I respectfully request that you guys think twice about removing photographs that aren't just junk. I look at photographs as seeds on the pages. They can be an invitation for people to write something--a picture is worth a thousand words. It's my way of trying to get people motivated to contribute writing; that gets foiled when you guys take down something that is relevant because I haven't taken the time myself. I can't do it all, and I'm doing a lot. People like pictures, and the more good photographs Wikipedia has, the more value it is adding to the public sphere. Think about all the bloggers who would like to use photographs with no copyright. This is why I am adding so many images. I put a lot of thought into them. I'm on vacation and spending my time writing and photographing for WP. Sometimes I put up a questionable image, but not typically. I have a lot of knowledge so I can usually explain why I think something is relevant. On my User page is an example of another editor's photograph I took down. I also agreed to having my beloved 2006 Qana airstrike protest photograph removed for a more relevant one (mine found a home on Union Square). So I'm not unbending. I agreed my lingerie addition wasn't particularly useful or relevant--I just liked the photo. But now I'm challenged to get a good shot of a lingerie store! So I do put thought... -- DavidShankBone 20:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
One last point: I'm doing enough work on here that I also don't want to end up creating a massive headache along the way. I feel I've read up on policies, but one always comes along I didn't know about. You guys are welcome to offer advice, or create a discussion page where people can discuss what I'm doing, and how I should be doing it. -- DavidShankBone 20:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
JRSP, you removed the word "dictator" from that phrase. I was reading the text, and I was wondering "who the hell is Velasco?" So I clicked the link. Having read the article on Velasco, I must say that "dictator" was a remarkably accurate and concise way of summarizing what he's known for.
As it is written now, the phrase conveys very little information in 7 words. Nobody knows who this Velasco dude is, and the most important facts about him is that he's a left-leaning dude who became president through a coup, and was known for political persecution until he was overthrown. A short word for that is "dictator."
I was therefore leaning towards reinserting "dictator" when I noticed that Chavez's "inspirations" are unsourced. So I've deleted the offending phrase. If it's true that Chavez was inspired by Velasco then it should be stated, with a reference, and with an extremely concise description of Velasco. If you don't want dictator, find an equivalent word that doesn't offend your sensibilities, but please, no need to airbrush the story.
Loisel 03:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The article has
User:SuperFlanker reverted to this version after I attempted to add some economic realism by using a more reliable source (the first one I came to, in this case the Economist). I don't mind that my edit was removed, but I would like to see this and several other economic points covered more accurately.
SuperFlanker commented "rv to JRSP´s version if we are to include inflation it has to be from start to finish (if not every year must be included)", but the inflation here cited was just one year, while I added inflation over a larger period (whatever my source had). The fact that the drop was a one-year fluke is very relevant: in fact in the following year it was at one of its highest points in recent memory. The article's failure to cite this, I conclude, is either an intentional POV slant or stunning misunderstanding of the facts.
Since I've had my edit removed, I'm not inclined to add it or a similar one back. I would ask that someone do this (I will only if no one else steps up), using common-sense guidelines:
I don't like to see misleading statistics, so if someone with a keep eye for figures can look them over and put something accurate hee, it would be much appreciated. Let's not let politics cloud our judgment here! CRGreathouse ( t | c) 05:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
For the purpose of analysing the material on this issue I've drawn up a table to show the different versions.-- Zleitzen 13:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Version added by CRGreathouse Nevertheless, there were also significant setbacks. Notably, the inflation rate rocketed to 31% in 2002 and remained at the high level of 27% in 2003, causing a great deal of hardship for the poor. [4] Further, per capita GDP had fallen 14% since 2000 according to the Economist. [5] |
Section on the page now supported by Flanker Nevertheless, there were also significant setbacks. Notably, the inflation rate rocketed to 31% in 2002 and remained at the high level of 27% in 2003, causing a great deal of hardship for the poor. [7] |
References
As a mathematician, it seems to me like the article would greatly benefit from taking these various mismatched and scattered statistics, and grouping them together on charts like this [18]. One makes a list, for instance
Each bullet is a chart. On each chart, one shows the evolution over time since 1999 (or even earlier) of these various numbers. As there are several sources, one can put several such lines on the same chart. Finally, large jumps in the charts can be annotated with contemporaneous events (if this does not lead to mud slinging, of course.) You see these types of charts all the time in Time Magazine and such.
If the numbers were at least tabulated, I could produce the charts. Loisel 18:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Try the World Bank for figures 2000, 2003, 2004: [19] and the current World Factbook for 2005 estimates [20]. Rd232 talk 10:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
If year by year figures have to be added then we will really increase the article size, previously only GDP is referenced for all 8 years, meanwhile inflation, poverty, unemployment is only start/finish. Beware using the facbook they specifically state you cannot chain economic data. Flanker 00:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is a great site for historical inflation [21] [22] , (the 31% was correct it just lacked historical and political turmoil) The data can be verified with central bank press releases. Flanker 00:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
It is missing 2006 but it is expected to be around 15% as well. Flanker 00:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
That data looks a lot like the one I'm using, except that it goes further back in time. If you want to go further back in time, be my guest, but one of the things I like about my graphs is that they line up on the time axis, it would be nice to keep it that way. Loisel 01:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Instead of showing percentage growth perhaps the actual GDP using local currency and constant prices is best, this is actually really good Database [23] just give me the years you want, (be warned 2006 and 07 are predictions and the IMF is notorious for flawed predictions before 06 are observations which are accurate) Thet predicted 6% for 06 but through the first half it is closer to 10%. Flanker 00:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that's the data I used. My GDB is in local currency's current value, whatever that means (an interested reader can look it up since the source is referenced.)
If the IMF data differs from the one I have, it should be added to the one GDP graph (so two lines on one graph) and the caption amended.
I am also looking for poverty data, but the WDI database doesn't have it and the UN database is down for the weekend. I wasn't able to find it anywhere else, but my internet is screwy right now, so if you can find a database with that information, let me know. Loisel 01:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
This is harder to find, it is easy to do so in dollars, but due to exchange rate fluctuations are extremely unreliable (actually it unrealistically inflates it if you are wondering), constant Bolivars per person is on the other hand the most accurate but nearly impossible to find. We could use a bit of arithmetic to simply divide GDP from the IMF database by population growth charts from the INE or CIA factbook (population numbers are not economic indicators obviously). Flanker 01:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with the one I have now? It's in current VEB per capita. Loisel 01:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The only detailed source is the INE which is the government's survey "branch", here is their data for the whole period (the website does not track data prior to 99) [24](tasa de desocupacion) User:Saravask created a similar graph and uploaded it, but I cannot find it. Flanker 01:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
INE is the Venezuelan government survey? Which (if I understand correctly above) gets audited by the UN and passes to the World Bank? Why does it not go further back than 1999? The WDI goes back much further. Also, why do you say INE is the only one who has it, I found it on WDI? Loisel 02:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Where can I get Poverty figures? (Preferably vetted by an NGO.) Loisel 02:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
To sumarize poverty is meassured by income compared to a static basket of goods of some sort, this is done to keep inflation accounted for, that said 2 sources (INE and WB) have reported a poverty drop, 1 opo pollster Datos reports accelerated increase in salary for strata E (almost doubling real income) since 2003 and another opo pollster Datanalisis reports an almost tripling of real income since 1998 for social strata E. Only the UCAB (we have to find a RS to verify the findings) has presented negative numers that contradict all of the above (mostly data after 2003). Flanker 18:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
What statistic on Oil would be interesting, where do we get it? (Preferably vetted by an NGO.) Oil revenue per year? Oil production per year? Loisel 02:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Sandy 00:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It does look like Venezuela, for whatever reason, is not meeting the OPEC quotas. I found your Mufson article interesting so I decided to see if I could find another source for this information, and here it is [34]. I didn't see anything about exaggerating though.
Your Mufson article mentions missing the quota by "at least 300K a day", that is presumably back in May or so. The article I found talks about 500K in 2004. Either way, the data here [35] is in remarkable agreement. So maybe that's what we should use. Loisel 03:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
By the way, this graph [36] is very interesting. It clearly shows something happened to oil production in Venezuela in 1997 and in 2002. You don't see it if you just look at overall numbers for 2001,2002,2003,2004,2005. It would be nice if we could get that graph in table form. Loisel 03:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is a great table about nominal income growth 98-06 from an oposition pollster (Datanalisis) [40], it is broken down like this: AB are the upper classes (around 4% of the population) saw an average 194% increase in income, C are the upper-middle classes (15% of the population) saw an average 236% rise in income, D (23%) are the middle-lower class saw a 346% increase, E (58%) are the lower classes seeing 445% increase. The CPI for this period increased by 3.66 times (266% using the WDI statistics) meaning ABC 19% of the population) had lower real income, DE is higher. This includes income and missiones but only on the recieving end. Mercal, Barrio Adentro and other social programs on the consumption side are not included. Social stratus are defined by how they live and not by income (ie quality of housing, cars etc.) Which has remained pretty static over the years. Flanker 16:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
From what I see they are mostly ok the problems I see is that they are not updated (we are n 3/4 2006) and that it is not well scaled (changes are not noticed at all), third there is no context, Chavez inaguration, oil prices, oil blue collar strike, coup etc. Flanker 02:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
It's very interesting that we are now writing Economy of Venezuela in the Hugo Chavez article, which is already too long, and without providing links to sources. At any rate, the single most important factor in Venezuela's economy is left out: the price of oil. Sandy 09:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
A user has removed a section that read
The source actually states;
:"and he is the ideologue who pushes an anti-imperialist, socialist agenda."
So "confrontational" is not in the source. And "ideolgue who pushes an anti-imperialist, socialist agenda" is not really a criticism. So I believe the user is correct to remove that statement. I've reinstated it for now for other users to consider.-- Zleitzen 19:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Having a look at how Encyclopedia Britannica treats the topic (most recent, 2005 entry): I can't quote too much, or it would be a copyright vio, so I will quote exactly the first five sentences:
So, while we have an incomplete, outdated, bloated, and highly-biased article, with a Criticism POV fork, we quibble over minor sentences, grow the article further, but editors here refuse to allow for balance to be brought to the article, or for biased sources to be removed, or for it to be updated to reflect current events, or for the Criticism and main articles to be merged and summarized to attain NPOV. A major rewrite/update is needed, and instead the focus here is on deleting any content unfavorable to Chavez, sentence by sentence, using any and all excuses, while EB simply acknowledges the factual reality and deals with it briefly and succinctly. It is not surprising that all efforts to NPOV this article are blocked, since it is so highly biased in favor of Chavez - a status quo apparently preferred by some editors here. The example above is classic: we can't even use the relatively mild term "confrontational ideologue", which is well backed by reliable sources. Sandy 19:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Well you put an article you thought was better, here is mine fromglobalsecurity.org (a defense think tank) Factual, concise, balanced and does not devolve into constant accusations [42] Flanker 23:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
We cannot just have a series of tiny, unrelated paragraphs lumped together to form one section; there should be one subsection for each event, similar to the Tony Blair article. If it is not possible to write a whole subsection on a particular event, then the event is nothing more than a ratings-magnet and should not be mentioned. If there are no objections, I'd like to move the section to the talk page and begin work on a proper section: something more than a collection of media headlines. -- WGee 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
In a speech at the United Nations Assembly in New York on September 20, 2006, Chavez blasted the United States administration and called U.S President George W. Bush " The Devil" while criticizing its system as "worthless". While holding up a copy of Hegemony or Survival by Noam Chomsky, he also attack the country saying that the U.S was trying to dominate the whole world and quote it as "the American Empire". The senior US officals to the UN boycotted Chavez's speech, along with those of his iranian counterpart.
During the same speech he attack the Security Council's and its five permanent members of being "anti-democratic". He also mentioned about a veto cast by U.S Ambassador to the U.N John Bolton during the war against Hezbollah in Lebanon.
here's the reference [43]. I've put this for the whole speech when I first started those paragraphs. Did it vanished, since it was said to be NOT SOURCED?-- JForget 02:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
No, looks it was still there before the transfer of the section here. The what was reference 75 was for all what i've added, alhough there have been edits by other members after that.-- JForget 03:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Apparently the thought police did not like my additions to this article. Chavez calling Bush The Devil, and saying the USA will be destroyed are very unchristian-like statements. They are factual, and they were removed. Chavez also supports terrorism in Columbia. Chavez has commited genocide against those opposed to him, which lead to his people revolting and trying to overthorw him. I see that Wikipedia is not interested in these facts and delete them, because they are pro-Chavez and not neutral at all. Loke Laufeyiarson 00:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree about a pro-Chavez bent on this page. First we should describe Chavez as a dictator who stifles dissent, second I see no problem saying he associates with Rouge nations like Cuba, Iran and North Korea. This is the equivilent of saying Hitler was a mass murderer or that Ghandi was a pacificest: established facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicKirin ( talk • contribs) 11:42, 1 October 2006 UTC
Did anyone else hear him use the term "inshallah" at the end of his speech? I hear it in each replay, but the translator does not translate it, most likely since it isn't a Spanish word. I find it quite strange for the Venezuelan head of state to use an Arabic term. Anyone else think so? Cereal Killer 05:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Can someone explain via the article or otherwise exactly why Chavez compares himself to Simon Bolivar? Bolivar, according the wiki article on him was an ardent free-market Adam Smith disciple, also somewhat Jeffersonian, with some pro-U.S. leanings, granted times have changed, but ideologically, the two men appear polar opposites...
There are non-registered users abusing of this article's edition, putting lines like "Corrupt", "Communist", etc, which is different from reality.
I'm requesting this article to be edited by registered members only to avoid vandalism (User's IP: 82.113.6.19)
( Jale86 21:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC))
Irrelevant to the Chavez article, should be deleted when we rewrite and consolidate, perhaps in the Chomsky article? "One day after Chavez's speech, Chomsky's book rose to the No. 3 bestseller at online bookseller Amazon.com. [1] " Sandy 00:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Amazon.com rankings have been determined as unsuitable for incluson in other articles, so I removed a recently-added mention. CRGreathouse ( t | c) 00:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Fun. The bogus, invented number 53, based on original research and US-centric counting of non-existing presidential succession, which needs to be cleansed from Wiki, is now in the infobox. Sandy 01:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I note that this page now contains a vast amount of detail on Chavez's speech to the UN. Is this necessary? Sure, it deserves a mention. I know Chavez's rather typical demagogic comments just happen to be about a US leader, but does that mean it has the same resonance to the rest of us? What I'm asking is, do non-Americans get a say as to what they find important in an article? Or are we constantly " sleeping with the elephant" and at the mercy of the whims and twitches of what a foreign media finds important. The growing list of US politicians comments on this page means nothing to me at all. I'm here to learn about a Venezuelan President. I went through this when Castro's stomach exploded, and armies of editors rushed in to add full 10 line quotes from obscure US politicians, and endless "views from Washington" to the detriment of what I considered to be more important actual facts about Cuba. Does anyone else share this view, or am I all alone talking to myself? -- Zleitzen 14:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Just so we'll have them all in one place:
Sandy 17:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Sandy 17:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
After his comments on the floor of the UN, many have suggested Hugo Chavez is running for the DNC nomination for the 2008 presidential election. Mantion 06:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Reviewing this page again, I spotted an opinion about the Carlos Andrés Pérez administration sourced to what appears to be a piece by Saul Landau. Now in my opinion, Saul Landau is not the most reliable source on Latin American subjects, (I've stated this about Landau on other pages in the past) I reckon if I dug around a bit we could find where he has muddled various pieces of information - taken vague truths at face value and generally carried a very skewered view of events. Is it possible that we could find another source that reviews the Perez years - even if it says the same thing as Landau? Any thoughts?-- Zleitzen 00:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
JRSP, I don't understand this edit: there may have been one exit poll (not certain of that), but there are several other studies, reports, and reasons for the fraud claims. I thought the statement covered them all, not just the poll ?? Sandy 00:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I found a lot of information about Chavez that was incorrectly saved in Template space. I merely moved it to main space, but this solution is stopgap. I'm putting a note here to avoid placing three or four unattractive "Merge from" templates atop this page. I am requesting help from anyone who is a dedicated editor of this page:
Meanwhile, I will put a note on the talk page of the relevant contributor. Thanks -- Ling.Nut 15:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
They should all be deleted, the info is already incorporated and updated where needed, it all appears to be info temporarily used when Saravask created the entire series of Chavez info on Wiki. Much of the info is outdated, relies on non-reliable sources, and contains extensive POV. I've added prod tags to all, as they were only temporary, no longer needed. Sandy 15:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
-- Ling.Nut 19:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
JRSP, what is your point here? No one credibly believes the march was less than hundreds of thousands, as demonstrated by the pictures. (For the uninitiated, we're talking about a multiple lane freeway as far as the eye can see.) What is your point in reverting a number which I can just go and cite to any other number of sources? Your revert doesn't appear to be in good faith: anyone familiar with Venezuela's history knows that there are multiple sources, and there is no reason to object to the DOS. I've seen Metropolitan Police estimates, and since I did the work of finding a RELIABLE source once already, I'll let someone else look for more sources for now: in the meantime, I find it hard to understand this as a good faith revert. Sandy 00:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
[multiple edit conflicts] Yes, it was initially unsourced, as is most of Saravask's content. I've asked before if I, too, should start erasing facts well known to all of us just because Saravask never cited them. How many reliable sources do you want to substantiate what is apparent in pictures and everyone knows to be fact ?
[47]-- Zleitzen 01:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Lifsher, Marc. Venezuela Remains Deeply Divided --- President's Supporters And Critics Face Off; Few Try to Bridge the Gap. Wall Street Journal. (May 13, 2002). pg. A.15. "The Human Rights Commission of the Organization of American States, whose members visited Venezuela last week, called the situation disheartening. Both groups, said commission chairman Juan Mendez, are clinging to contradictory versions of who killed 17 people and wounded about 100 others during an April 11 march by at least 300,000 demonstrators on Mr. Chavez's presidential palace."
Pick your source, JRSP, and please change the ten back to hundred. You're welcome to leave the picture gallery, which is instructive. Sandy 01:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
A user named Tannim is now continuing the work of banned user MagicKirin by repeatedly entering this rather unenlightened edit to the page and reverting anyone who changes this.
It is spelt Chevex in each edit by the way. Users please ensure that this doesn't keep sneaking back in. Thanks.-- Zleitzen 12:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
First my ban was not legitimate, Jaranda refused to discuss it. Second it is an accurate description Chavez says with pride he associates with these countries. And if you follow the news today Oct 9, 2006, North Korea was condenmed by the entire international community.
As far as Chavez goes he is a illegitimate authoratarian leader who is the bigest threat to stability in this hemisphere. that desciption I did not put on the pages even though it is true —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tannim ( talk • contribs)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
To state the findings of opinion polls is not biased. Perhaps the phrase "unassailable lead" is a bit strong to some, but it is enclosed in quotation marks and attributed to the BBC, a reputable organization renowned for its factually accurate reporting. Given the organization's history and reputability, there is no reason for us to believe that the BBC is exaggerating the truth when it says that Chavez's lead in incontestible and clear-cut. If contradictory opinion polls are found, they can be certainly be included; until then, we should assume that the BBC's interpretation of the opinion polls is neutral and factually accurate.
Nor is it redundant to state the findings of the opinion polls, for the opinions and observations of Time are distinct to opinion polls conducted on the ground in Venezuela. Polls are much more neutral and credible than the speculation of news organizations, and, in this case, they serve to vindicate the findings of Time magazine.
-- WGee 19:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I am really, really for it I described in my user page my definition and difference so that Sandy can see that it is not some arbitrary definition ;) Granted what Mateo is doing is modifying the prose so that is neutrally worded as oposed to POV loaded, which is in itself a very positive step. Flanker 21:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
My fears about the inclusion of a second source that speculates about HC's chances for re-election have been confirmed; today we have a third poll. Surprise! It falls back into the old oh-yeah-well-this-source-says-something-else pattern. The future likelihood of X,Y, or Z is not even material for an encyclopedia. I now think that *zero references to that stuff is the correct number. Send it to wikinews.
I'd love to Be Bold but I also don't want to start a revert war. I'd like some people to read these notes and just say "Mateo, you seem pretty trustworthy, go ahead and do these edits". That would be simple and sweet; much better than getting into a donnybrook over every individual suggestion. All comments are appreciated, though. Man, I love wikipedia.
Chavez article notes:
These notes -- I hope -- are in accord with my Principles for Editing Controversial Topics, which you can read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mateo_LeFou
"what he terms anti-imperialism" I would omit 'what he terms'. The fact that this is Chavez's view is established by the use of "his vision of" earlier in this sentence.
"orchestrating a failed 1992 coup d'état" I would change to 'the unsucessful coup d'etat' largely for readability. If people need the year they can find it. Also, doublecheck that he "orchestrated" it rather than just "participated in" it.
"on promises of aiding Venezuela's poor majority" I would change to "by promising to aid Venezuela's poor majority", and only if it's widely-accepted that this was the decisive factor in his being elected. "On promises of aiding" is slightly clumsy.
"Chávez's far-reaching reforms have evoked exceptional controversy in Venezuela and abroad, receiving both criticism and praise. Venezuelans are split between those who say he has empowered the poor and stimulated economic growth, and those who say he is autocratic and has mismanaged the economy. Some foreign governments view Chávez as a threat to global oil prices and regional stability, while others welcome his bilateral trade and reciprocal aid agreements." This is an excellent graf, even if Sandy wrote it. ;) The controversial aspects of Chavez's programs are introduced without editorializing; the best arguments of both sides are summarized with clarity and efficiency.
""Bolivarianism," inspired by the Pan-Americanist philosophies of 19th-century Venezuelan revolutionary" I would change to "'Bolivarianism,' named after the 19th-century Venezuelan revolutionary..." at the unfortunate cost of a link to "Pan-Americanist", for basic readability. I would also cut "the influence of Peruvian dictator Juan Velasco, and the teachings of various socialist and communist leaders" to keep it concise.
The baseball and poetry stuff is interesting, but disrupts the flow. I'd rearrage, putting it in a separate graf preceding the one it's presently in. Once we open the Bolivarian can of worms, the article should focus on political theory and activity. For "narrative" reasons.
"he was first acknowledged by his peers for his fiery lecturing style" I would change to "where his fiery lecturing style made an impact" or something like that. "Acknowledged by his peers" has some pro-Chavez bias (still with me, Sandy?), indicating (truly or falsely) that he started acquiring accolades at this time.
btw, my asides to Sandy are all in good fun. I hope we can collaborate and fix this incredibly-funky article. If you and I can bury the hatchet, this will be FA again; that's what I want!
"unusually radical critique of Venezuelan government and society" radical is by definition unusual. Pick one.
"ive army units under Chávez's command barreled into urban Caracas" Barreled is loaded, and is also spelled wrong. I'd say "moved into urban Caracas"
The graf beginning "Chávez held the loyalty of less than 10%" is pretty problematic. "Plotters" is somewhat loaded. Relatively unversed, I'd hesitate to rewrite this, but it would probably say "Though civilian aid enabled the rebel forces to take control of Valencia, Maracaibo, and Maracay, Caracas remained unattainable. This was largely due to weak support in the Venezuelan military, and to the failed attempt to broadcast prerecorded tapes encouraging a general call for a mass civilian uprising against Perez." With one citation.
"Chavez, alarmed..." is another excellent graf.
"Chávez went on to win the Carter Center-endorsed 1998 presidential election on December 6, 1998 with 56% of the vote." Hm... there's something defensive about incorporating the Carter Center endorsement, phrased this way. I'd write something like "Chavez won the 1998 election blahblahblah. Though there were some allegations of election fraud the results were endorsed by the Carter Center." Same facts, different presentation.
Man, this article is long. It's worth it, though! Press on!
1999: Economic Crisis "set his eyes upon" change to "eyed"? "This civilian-military program was launched as "Plan Bolivar 2000," whose scope included road building..." change to "which included road building..." Weird use of "whose" has always been a pet peeve of mine, sorry.
"The plan faltered at the end of 2001 with accusations and revelations of corruption by military officers, including both military officers who later rebelled against the president in April 2002 and officers linked to the president" change to ""The plan faltered at the end of 2001 amid revelations of corruption by military officers" for concision. If corruption was revealed, 'accusations' is unnecessary. The rest is run-on-ish.
"in the hopes of garnering elevated oil prices" change to "in the hopes of elevating oil prices"
"These agreements had allowed the corporations to pay in taxes as little as 1% of the tens of billions of dollars in revenues they were earning from the Venezuelan oil they were extracting..." change to "These agreements provided substantial tax benefits to the oil companies." The inclusion of these figures reflects some pro-Chavez bias.
"by mid-1999, Chávez was incensed by his administration's setbacks in enacting" change to "by mid-1999, Chávez was incensed by setbacks to his administration's enacting"
"The constitutional referendum passed with a CNE-audited 72% "yes" vote" Again, defensive inclusion of CNE.
The rest of the new constitution stuff is pretty clean; the mudslide graf at the end is funky. It has some anti-Chavez bias ("claimed the lives of an estimated 30,000 people. Critics claim Chávez was distracted by the referendum") and pro-Chavez bias ("Chávez personally led the relief effort afterwards"). These things are not false; but their incluson here strikes me as an attempt to exploit a tragedy to ennoble/degrade Chavez.
2000-2001 Relection: See, here is where it makes sense to introduce the Carter Center's supervision/review of the election results. They are an important piece of the puzzle at this juncture.
Dang, I need some sleep...more later. Mateo LeFou 06:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Next, for Mateo, to the second problem with the article (after the verbosity and size, and failure to use Summary Style). You should be aware of how the "Criticism" article came to be (you might want to read the Criticism AfD). It was originally created because this article was too long, and all sections were going to be summarized to Summary Style. After I summarized Criticism, summary was halted. WGee changed his mind after the negative content was removed, which in effect, created a POV fork, with one little section of negative content, and a massively oversized article with a pro-Chavez bias. There should be no criticism section: for the article to be balanced, all sides of the story should be presented throughout, in context, preserving flow and balance. There is no reason for a separate Criticism section, relegated to a small section at the bottom of the article. It is only there because editing by bullying, rather than consensus, relegated anything negative about Chavez to a secondary place in the article. All sides of the story should be woven into the text, throughout. The article needs structural changes, not minute adjustments to wording. If your intent is to fine tune wording, leaving a very unbalanced article, the article will remain POV. You should know that we were within days of removing the POV tag until the Summary Style work halted. Sandy 17:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Some material of the Presidency section could be moved to the daughter article Presidency of Hugo Chávez. The daughter article is intended to be the place for details while the main article section should summarize that article. However, present situation is that the 2006 subsec is present in the main article but not in the daughter. We need to trim the article it is already 100Kb+ JRSP 17:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't realized there were so many daughter articles, I think we can yank section 4 (Presidency) and restructure or remove 5 (Impact of presidency). I propose new, concise section text beginning with:
"The Chavez presidency has been one of the most event- and controversy-filled periods of Venezuelan history. A new constitution has been approved; a coup and couter-coup have both succeeded, resulting the shortest presidency ( Carmona's) of Venezuela's history; a constitutional recall has failed; and numerous far-reaching economic programs (the " Bolivarian Missions") have been initiated. While the long-term results of these cannot be known yet, they clearly represent a dramatically different strategy than that of previous administrations. Chavez has also been prominent on the world stage, especially as an influential personality and outspoken critic of neoliberal globalization."
There obviously needs to be more -- as per JRSP the presidency is the definitive section here -- but I believe this is appropriate summary style. I'm going for a sorta wishy-washy solution: eliminating the need for copious references by saying only what is obvious, e.g. Chavez's economic programs are arguably great, arguably awful, but definitely "far-reaching". etc.
If you think I'm on the right track, I can do a similar redux of most the subsections that have spawned daughter articles and put the drafts in here. Chavez and the media is almost concise enough, but the third graf in that section is pretty off-topic and unnecessary. In fact I'm taking that graf out now Mateo LeFou 14:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Boy do I hate the lead on this. The 12 year term-limit question isn't relevant to 2006. Now that we got opinion-poll cruft out of there, my text would be: "Chavez is campaigning for re-election in December, and has also announced a Venezuelan bid to win a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council..." Subsequent text implies that all opposition to the Venezualan bid comes from Washingtonian puppetry; this is biased. Subsequent subsequent text implies that all support is bought with gifts or otherwise trumped-up. Guys! There's gambling going on in this casino! I propose we find another significant event of '06 to mention in order to pad out this section, or remove it entirely. After the security council bid fails or succeeds, we can summarize a couple of opinions about why it went that way. Mateo LeFou 15:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Will add here as many as I can find, all updated(check detailed poll results in the lower part):
Institute for Data Analysis (don't know) gives him 60% excellent and good and 80% if you add average to good approval rating [3]
The only big name oposition pollsters I am missing is Datos and Alejandro and Sejias. Will add more as I find them. Flanker 03:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The following comment was origanally posted on Talk:Israel-Venezuela relations:
Preferably, I would like to see all biased secondary sources removed from the all of these Hugo Chavez–related articles, unless they are used to relay statistics or quotations from a primary source. Academic publications (such as International Affairs by the Chatham House ) and similarly reputable sources are the only things that should be cited. Academic essays are peer reviewed; have reasonable, rational criticisms; and do not resort to sensational language to convey their theses. Further, academic essays are selected for publication usually because they are deemed to be vitally important to their fields; thus, they tend analyze the broad picture and ignore superfluous details and statistics. Other sources are acceptable as well, as long as they are not overtly biased.
So, in essence, I would like to see only non-biased sources in these articles. That would not mean an absence of criticism, however, because more or less neutral sources (e.g., Amnesty and the Chatham House) do discuss criticisms. The difference is that these neutral sources focus on deep, broad and intriguing criticisms, rather than on sensationally-phrased accusations regarding specific news events. If, however, it is absolutely necessary to refer to a biased news agency (like The Economst, for example) in order to gain the critics' POV on a particular event, make sure that their assertion is recapitulated in encyclopedic language.
-- WGee 04:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
From article:
I will be glad to expand it to make the relevance more clear to those who don't seem to get it, but then you'll complain about overkill. Your choice. I personally think it is the single most relevant appraisal of what was going on in the international media wrt Chavez until about 2004, because the international media simply was not paying any attention to what was happening in Venezuela. This article (or the Media article, can't remember which) previously had unfounded and unsourced allegations of anti-Chavez bias in the international media during the early 2000 years. The media wasn't paying attention, except for the rare WSJ article, the NYT pro-Chavez reports from the Juan Forero, and more regular reporting from the BBC. If you want me to expand the content to make the relevance more clear, I can do that, but I think Naim's appraisal is the most accurate description of what was happening in the international media as Chavez consolidated power. Sandy 17:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I have just re-read the referenced article, and it contains quite a bit of useful analysis, albeit not entirely impartial. It does not, however, analyze Chavez and the media. Not at all. The "compete for attention line" in context, reads:
...making it clear that it is the attention of the policymakers, not the media, that is referred to.
This is one of several excellent points in the article, which has as its true subject not Chavez and the Media but (essentially) few episodes better illustrate the limits of US power than the outmanoeuvring of Uncle Sam by Fidel in a country that is one of the largest suppliers of oil to the US.
In my opinion a summary of this article would be a great lead for "Hugo Chávez presidency" in the page United_States-Venezuela_relations. Except that the lead paragraph there is already relatively good.
Again, I think the fact that it does not belong here is patently obvious Mateo LeFou 22:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm .... maybe it is time for me to get actively involved once more with this article ... just like I did last year around November - December .... Oh! But that was when both pro-Chavez and anti-Chavez editors worked together to bring the article to FA status. If pro and anti Chavez editors could then agree on an article that became FA, it should even be easier to agree now when it is not even a FAC. Just a thought. ;-) Anagnorisis 16:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I perversely believe the articles are better and more reliable now than they were when the main article had FAC status. Thanks largely to the persistent battle between the two groups of editors. The constant refining of wording and sources has meant that everything is being analysed to a finer and finer degree. If you look at the article before Xmas, it was too loose and full of weasel words and weak claims. Although the personal temperature has risen considerably between editors which is a shame, I actually believe that both the articles and the talk page banter represent as informed and interesting dialogue as one is likely to find on Chavez anywhere in the English speaking media! Sorry to take some enjoyment from your discomforts guys! All I can offer as advice is to keep up the hyper analysis of every source and don't get too bogged down in personalities of other editors. I hope to check changes as much as I can - my own POV, for what it's worth, is that I have certain broad sympathies with Chavez's stated goals, but fear the almost spiritual influence of Castro on Chavez which could cause problems for many, including Cubans.-- Zleitzen 17:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the old consensual work was achieved because we were willing to compromise just so that the article wouldn't go too much in the other direction. I think we feared the article would end up being FA without being neutral enough. One side feared it would have too much criticism, and the other too much praise. Thus, the pro-Chavez guys were just happy pushing to remove all unsourced and obvious POV criticism, without this meaning the article having to include their own POV praise of Chavez; and on the other hand, tha anti-Chavez group were happy by just removing all flowery praise. Basically we agreed that if the info could be supported by sources, then it would go in -of course using neutral language (this was at times trickier than deciding what to include and what not). The other thing that helped a lot was that we got lot of help from editor Silence, who helped copyedit the article (btw, he is an excellent copyeditor, but likes to get involved only during the FA review process). In the end, it is not that difficult to agree on the facts that are sourced -what is more difficult is to agree on the exact language. If editors really care about the article and about informing the reader, sooner or later they will agree on what to have and what not; however, if it all about egos or about having fun and trolling .... well, then it will be a long process. Anagnorisis 19:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
What might it take for it to reach FA again?
Sorry for answering a question you asked of Anagnorisis, Flanker, but since I'm a very active reviewer at both FAR and FAC, I felt qualified. Sandy 20:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I know you are qualified and appreciate your input, that said the FA process really left a sour taste in my mouth, I have turned my attention in trying to make the best encyclopedic article posible (ie it explains the situation the best to a layman) as opposed to a specific rulset of FA which I find even more invasive and arbitrary than typical wikipedia policy. But if both miraculously coincide with little effort I would not complain. Flanker 04:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Copied from above:
continue to believe that Foreign policy should be realigned according to area of policy focus, and expanded: Could you expand on this? Flanker 18:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Source discussing two areas of foreign policy focus: 1) reaching out to countries who have been isolated by U.S. foreign policy and 2) part of Venezuela's campaign for a non-permanent seat on the United Nations' Security Council. [10]
Intereference in affairs of other Latin American countries:
Sandy 22:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
More news from today explaining his current foreign policy focus:
Sandy 13:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a couple of very short articles (not marked as stubs): Chavismo and Chavista. Please check these articles, perhaps they could be merged in some other place JRSP 14:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted Flanker's last change for the following reasons:
Actually WP:V and WP:RS encourage the use of primary sources. The editor who performed these deletions misunderstands Wikipedia policy. Allegations of biased sources are a different matter, but I suggest restoring all citations that were blanked merely because the source was primary. Durova 16:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I received the following at my talk page:
I tried to create a good encyclopedia, even going so far as to making sure people understand Venezuela, the source I link is a verifiable opposition source documenting a 140% growth in income in the poorest sectors of society, I could quote that it is right there, but instead as always chose to adjust it for inflation showing an 80% REAL growth. The irony is that it was the same as before only it was 55% growth (this was an update on that data from the same source). (Just my opinion: it is wonderful news that real income is growing so fast so steady).
It seems that even when I do simple additions and multiplications to show a more realistic and less positive result it will not be tolerated.
As for the use of primary sources it is allowed in Wikipedia, however if you prefer Sandy we can use the Datanalisis quote from the economist showing a doubling of income among strata E. From another opposition pollster. Flanker 19:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The Guardian: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/300806Ch%E1vez.htm " US accused of bid to oust Chávez with secret funds"] -- Striver 23:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
More balanced reports:
Sandy 04:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Unless anyone disagrees, I'd like to archive Table of Contents 1 - 30. I will leave the POV list in archives, so it will no longer show on the talk page, but we know where it is.
Sandy
04:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Brain dead and brainwashed oppressed people unable to elevate their minds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.48.144.3 ( talk • contribs)
News to be added to the President for Life section:
We currently have:
But recent news from Caracas1830 indicates that he is now promising the referendum, even though the opposition has not boycotted the elections:
These need to be merged and updated: we should now be able to delete the silliness about him denying his claims to president for life. We now have his exact intentions, more clearly stated in the Spanish version than in the English press.
Sandy 12:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Also reported in Forbes:
Sandy 13:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Report from MercoSur, President for Life, sending buddy Rodriguez to Cuba:
Announced in Qatar press, Chavez's plans for Venezuela:
" ... his new presidential term would mark a new phase of his economic and political plan, to transform Venezuela into the Venezuelan Socialist Republic. ... “Now, between 2007 to 2021, we have 14 years to plant, deepen the roots and extend the revolution in all directions so that Venezuela becomes the Socialist Bolivarian Republic in every way, for true equality, liberty — a democracy that is deep, of the people, participatory and proactive,” he said.
He outlined the plan, which he named after Simon Bolivar, liberator of Venezuela and much of South America. “One: a new socialist ethic; two, a socialist mode of production, a socialist economy; three, a revolutionary heroic democracy where the power of the people will be the maximum power of the republic; four, supreme social joy; five, a new national geopolitic, decentralised development, development in the fields and development in the cities; six, a new international geopolitic, a multipolar world, a balanced world; seven, Venezuela as an energetic world power, a world oil power,” he said.
... he named his plan “The National and Socialist Plan of Simon Jose Antonio de la Santisima Trinidad Bolivar y Palacio,” Bolivar’s full name. "
There is, in a nutshell, Chavez's plan for Venezuela; a socialist country with a president for life. It all needs to be included in the article. Sandy 15:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
It was Chavez and his party who drafted and passed the current constitution that prohits 2 reelections. His willingness to change his own laws to suit his present needs supports the president for life theory, it is only a matter of time. Prime Minister of Canada for
Why are you POV editors continuously reverting my edits. You claim that they are "my opinions"? What are you talking about? There is no opinion or speculation of mine in there. All I have done is state in a condensed form the claims in those sources. There is nothing in there that has come from my mind. Your deletions are vandalism, and I will continue to place my edits back in until you explain to me what Im doing wrong, instead of just sending me this garbage rhetoric to my userpage without actually explaining anything. Can we just have some maturity here please for God's sake. I don't care if this annoys you. You are the ones being irresponsible here, and as I said before you are not going to stop me from placing my edits until we straighten this out. I have followed the rules for editing on wikipedia, and have done nothing wrong.
-User:60.234.157.64
First, I apologize for putting this photograph up without giving this page more consideration given the controversial subject. I put this image up not as a partisan--As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out with Chavez--but as someone who went to go see a free circus on Coney Island on Labor Day. Circus Amok--see Jennifer Miller--is an award-winning production that has received grants for its work. In their act, they were illustrating the differences between the South American Presidents, and our own. Our own President's record did not look as favorable as the South Americans, at least for in terms of what they attempt to do for their own people. That's besides the point. I think it is relevant to this page because of of a high-profile act and that Chavez is obviously influencing artistic expression (that is government-funded, mind you). That's relevant. Besides, it's an interesting photograph that I make a bet people would find interesting to view, and this is great page to do so. It adds dimension that simple figurative photographs do not, on their own. I request it be resurrected, please. You all will note I took pains to write a neutral caption. -- DavidShankBone 17:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I have to read Hugo Chavez main article more, but I would like to see it on both pages. Context for the main page could perhaps be done as short paragraph about Chavez and New York City. First, because of the sizeable Latino (and Venezuelan) populace here; second, because Citgo, at his behest, gave breaks to poor people in NYC for heating fuel; and third, that performance itself, which was funded with an NEA-grant and has won awards. That could go in the New York paragraph. What do you think? Or is there already? -- DavidShankBone 19:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I respectfully request that you guys think twice about removing photographs that aren't just junk. I look at photographs as seeds on the pages. They can be an invitation for people to write something--a picture is worth a thousand words. It's my way of trying to get people motivated to contribute writing; that gets foiled when you guys take down something that is relevant because I haven't taken the time myself. I can't do it all, and I'm doing a lot. People like pictures, and the more good photographs Wikipedia has, the more value it is adding to the public sphere. Think about all the bloggers who would like to use photographs with no copyright. This is why I am adding so many images. I put a lot of thought into them. I'm on vacation and spending my time writing and photographing for WP. Sometimes I put up a questionable image, but not typically. I have a lot of knowledge so I can usually explain why I think something is relevant. On my User page is an example of another editor's photograph I took down. I also agreed to having my beloved 2006 Qana airstrike protest photograph removed for a more relevant one (mine found a home on Union Square). So I'm not unbending. I agreed my lingerie addition wasn't particularly useful or relevant--I just liked the photo. But now I'm challenged to get a good shot of a lingerie store! So I do put thought... -- DavidShankBone 20:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
One last point: I'm doing enough work on here that I also don't want to end up creating a massive headache along the way. I feel I've read up on policies, but one always comes along I didn't know about. You guys are welcome to offer advice, or create a discussion page where people can discuss what I'm doing, and how I should be doing it. -- DavidShankBone 20:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
JRSP, you removed the word "dictator" from that phrase. I was reading the text, and I was wondering "who the hell is Velasco?" So I clicked the link. Having read the article on Velasco, I must say that "dictator" was a remarkably accurate and concise way of summarizing what he's known for.
As it is written now, the phrase conveys very little information in 7 words. Nobody knows who this Velasco dude is, and the most important facts about him is that he's a left-leaning dude who became president through a coup, and was known for political persecution until he was overthrown. A short word for that is "dictator."
I was therefore leaning towards reinserting "dictator" when I noticed that Chavez's "inspirations" are unsourced. So I've deleted the offending phrase. If it's true that Chavez was inspired by Velasco then it should be stated, with a reference, and with an extremely concise description of Velasco. If you don't want dictator, find an equivalent word that doesn't offend your sensibilities, but please, no need to airbrush the story.
Loisel 03:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The article has
User:SuperFlanker reverted to this version after I attempted to add some economic realism by using a more reliable source (the first one I came to, in this case the Economist). I don't mind that my edit was removed, but I would like to see this and several other economic points covered more accurately.
SuperFlanker commented "rv to JRSP´s version if we are to include inflation it has to be from start to finish (if not every year must be included)", but the inflation here cited was just one year, while I added inflation over a larger period (whatever my source had). The fact that the drop was a one-year fluke is very relevant: in fact in the following year it was at one of its highest points in recent memory. The article's failure to cite this, I conclude, is either an intentional POV slant or stunning misunderstanding of the facts.
Since I've had my edit removed, I'm not inclined to add it or a similar one back. I would ask that someone do this (I will only if no one else steps up), using common-sense guidelines:
I don't like to see misleading statistics, so if someone with a keep eye for figures can look them over and put something accurate hee, it would be much appreciated. Let's not let politics cloud our judgment here! CRGreathouse ( t | c) 05:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
For the purpose of analysing the material on this issue I've drawn up a table to show the different versions.-- Zleitzen 13:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Version added by CRGreathouse Nevertheless, there were also significant setbacks. Notably, the inflation rate rocketed to 31% in 2002 and remained at the high level of 27% in 2003, causing a great deal of hardship for the poor. [4] Further, per capita GDP had fallen 14% since 2000 according to the Economist. [5] |
Section on the page now supported by Flanker Nevertheless, there were also significant setbacks. Notably, the inflation rate rocketed to 31% in 2002 and remained at the high level of 27% in 2003, causing a great deal of hardship for the poor. [7] |
References
As a mathematician, it seems to me like the article would greatly benefit from taking these various mismatched and scattered statistics, and grouping them together on charts like this [18]. One makes a list, for instance
Each bullet is a chart. On each chart, one shows the evolution over time since 1999 (or even earlier) of these various numbers. As there are several sources, one can put several such lines on the same chart. Finally, large jumps in the charts can be annotated with contemporaneous events (if this does not lead to mud slinging, of course.) You see these types of charts all the time in Time Magazine and such.
If the numbers were at least tabulated, I could produce the charts. Loisel 18:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Try the World Bank for figures 2000, 2003, 2004: [19] and the current World Factbook for 2005 estimates [20]. Rd232 talk 10:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
If year by year figures have to be added then we will really increase the article size, previously only GDP is referenced for all 8 years, meanwhile inflation, poverty, unemployment is only start/finish. Beware using the facbook they specifically state you cannot chain economic data. Flanker 00:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is a great site for historical inflation [21] [22] , (the 31% was correct it just lacked historical and political turmoil) The data can be verified with central bank press releases. Flanker 00:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
It is missing 2006 but it is expected to be around 15% as well. Flanker 00:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
That data looks a lot like the one I'm using, except that it goes further back in time. If you want to go further back in time, be my guest, but one of the things I like about my graphs is that they line up on the time axis, it would be nice to keep it that way. Loisel 01:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Instead of showing percentage growth perhaps the actual GDP using local currency and constant prices is best, this is actually really good Database [23] just give me the years you want, (be warned 2006 and 07 are predictions and the IMF is notorious for flawed predictions before 06 are observations which are accurate) Thet predicted 6% for 06 but through the first half it is closer to 10%. Flanker 00:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that's the data I used. My GDB is in local currency's current value, whatever that means (an interested reader can look it up since the source is referenced.)
If the IMF data differs from the one I have, it should be added to the one GDP graph (so two lines on one graph) and the caption amended.
I am also looking for poverty data, but the WDI database doesn't have it and the UN database is down for the weekend. I wasn't able to find it anywhere else, but my internet is screwy right now, so if you can find a database with that information, let me know. Loisel 01:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
This is harder to find, it is easy to do so in dollars, but due to exchange rate fluctuations are extremely unreliable (actually it unrealistically inflates it if you are wondering), constant Bolivars per person is on the other hand the most accurate but nearly impossible to find. We could use a bit of arithmetic to simply divide GDP from the IMF database by population growth charts from the INE or CIA factbook (population numbers are not economic indicators obviously). Flanker 01:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with the one I have now? It's in current VEB per capita. Loisel 01:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The only detailed source is the INE which is the government's survey "branch", here is their data for the whole period (the website does not track data prior to 99) [24](tasa de desocupacion) User:Saravask created a similar graph and uploaded it, but I cannot find it. Flanker 01:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
INE is the Venezuelan government survey? Which (if I understand correctly above) gets audited by the UN and passes to the World Bank? Why does it not go further back than 1999? The WDI goes back much further. Also, why do you say INE is the only one who has it, I found it on WDI? Loisel 02:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Where can I get Poverty figures? (Preferably vetted by an NGO.) Loisel 02:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
To sumarize poverty is meassured by income compared to a static basket of goods of some sort, this is done to keep inflation accounted for, that said 2 sources (INE and WB) have reported a poverty drop, 1 opo pollster Datos reports accelerated increase in salary for strata E (almost doubling real income) since 2003 and another opo pollster Datanalisis reports an almost tripling of real income since 1998 for social strata E. Only the UCAB (we have to find a RS to verify the findings) has presented negative numers that contradict all of the above (mostly data after 2003). Flanker 18:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
What statistic on Oil would be interesting, where do we get it? (Preferably vetted by an NGO.) Oil revenue per year? Oil production per year? Loisel 02:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Sandy 00:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It does look like Venezuela, for whatever reason, is not meeting the OPEC quotas. I found your Mufson article interesting so I decided to see if I could find another source for this information, and here it is [34]. I didn't see anything about exaggerating though.
Your Mufson article mentions missing the quota by "at least 300K a day", that is presumably back in May or so. The article I found talks about 500K in 2004. Either way, the data here [35] is in remarkable agreement. So maybe that's what we should use. Loisel 03:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
By the way, this graph [36] is very interesting. It clearly shows something happened to oil production in Venezuela in 1997 and in 2002. You don't see it if you just look at overall numbers for 2001,2002,2003,2004,2005. It would be nice if we could get that graph in table form. Loisel 03:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is a great table about nominal income growth 98-06 from an oposition pollster (Datanalisis) [40], it is broken down like this: AB are the upper classes (around 4% of the population) saw an average 194% increase in income, C are the upper-middle classes (15% of the population) saw an average 236% rise in income, D (23%) are the middle-lower class saw a 346% increase, E (58%) are the lower classes seeing 445% increase. The CPI for this period increased by 3.66 times (266% using the WDI statistics) meaning ABC 19% of the population) had lower real income, DE is higher. This includes income and missiones but only on the recieving end. Mercal, Barrio Adentro and other social programs on the consumption side are not included. Social stratus are defined by how they live and not by income (ie quality of housing, cars etc.) Which has remained pretty static over the years. Flanker 16:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
From what I see they are mostly ok the problems I see is that they are not updated (we are n 3/4 2006) and that it is not well scaled (changes are not noticed at all), third there is no context, Chavez inaguration, oil prices, oil blue collar strike, coup etc. Flanker 02:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
It's very interesting that we are now writing Economy of Venezuela in the Hugo Chavez article, which is already too long, and without providing links to sources. At any rate, the single most important factor in Venezuela's economy is left out: the price of oil. Sandy 09:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
A user has removed a section that read
The source actually states;
:"and he is the ideologue who pushes an anti-imperialist, socialist agenda."
So "confrontational" is not in the source. And "ideolgue who pushes an anti-imperialist, socialist agenda" is not really a criticism. So I believe the user is correct to remove that statement. I've reinstated it for now for other users to consider.-- Zleitzen 19:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Having a look at how Encyclopedia Britannica treats the topic (most recent, 2005 entry): I can't quote too much, or it would be a copyright vio, so I will quote exactly the first five sentences:
So, while we have an incomplete, outdated, bloated, and highly-biased article, with a Criticism POV fork, we quibble over minor sentences, grow the article further, but editors here refuse to allow for balance to be brought to the article, or for biased sources to be removed, or for it to be updated to reflect current events, or for the Criticism and main articles to be merged and summarized to attain NPOV. A major rewrite/update is needed, and instead the focus here is on deleting any content unfavorable to Chavez, sentence by sentence, using any and all excuses, while EB simply acknowledges the factual reality and deals with it briefly and succinctly. It is not surprising that all efforts to NPOV this article are blocked, since it is so highly biased in favor of Chavez - a status quo apparently preferred by some editors here. The example above is classic: we can't even use the relatively mild term "confrontational ideologue", which is well backed by reliable sources. Sandy 19:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Well you put an article you thought was better, here is mine fromglobalsecurity.org (a defense think tank) Factual, concise, balanced and does not devolve into constant accusations [42] Flanker 23:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
We cannot just have a series of tiny, unrelated paragraphs lumped together to form one section; there should be one subsection for each event, similar to the Tony Blair article. If it is not possible to write a whole subsection on a particular event, then the event is nothing more than a ratings-magnet and should not be mentioned. If there are no objections, I'd like to move the section to the talk page and begin work on a proper section: something more than a collection of media headlines. -- WGee 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
In a speech at the United Nations Assembly in New York on September 20, 2006, Chavez blasted the United States administration and called U.S President George W. Bush " The Devil" while criticizing its system as "worthless". While holding up a copy of Hegemony or Survival by Noam Chomsky, he also attack the country saying that the U.S was trying to dominate the whole world and quote it as "the American Empire". The senior US officals to the UN boycotted Chavez's speech, along with those of his iranian counterpart.
During the same speech he attack the Security Council's and its five permanent members of being "anti-democratic". He also mentioned about a veto cast by U.S Ambassador to the U.N John Bolton during the war against Hezbollah in Lebanon.
here's the reference [43]. I've put this for the whole speech when I first started those paragraphs. Did it vanished, since it was said to be NOT SOURCED?-- JForget 02:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
No, looks it was still there before the transfer of the section here. The what was reference 75 was for all what i've added, alhough there have been edits by other members after that.-- JForget 03:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Apparently the thought police did not like my additions to this article. Chavez calling Bush The Devil, and saying the USA will be destroyed are very unchristian-like statements. They are factual, and they were removed. Chavez also supports terrorism in Columbia. Chavez has commited genocide against those opposed to him, which lead to his people revolting and trying to overthorw him. I see that Wikipedia is not interested in these facts and delete them, because they are pro-Chavez and not neutral at all. Loke Laufeyiarson 00:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree about a pro-Chavez bent on this page. First we should describe Chavez as a dictator who stifles dissent, second I see no problem saying he associates with Rouge nations like Cuba, Iran and North Korea. This is the equivilent of saying Hitler was a mass murderer or that Ghandi was a pacificest: established facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicKirin ( talk • contribs) 11:42, 1 October 2006 UTC
Did anyone else hear him use the term "inshallah" at the end of his speech? I hear it in each replay, but the translator does not translate it, most likely since it isn't a Spanish word. I find it quite strange for the Venezuelan head of state to use an Arabic term. Anyone else think so? Cereal Killer 05:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Can someone explain via the article or otherwise exactly why Chavez compares himself to Simon Bolivar? Bolivar, according the wiki article on him was an ardent free-market Adam Smith disciple, also somewhat Jeffersonian, with some pro-U.S. leanings, granted times have changed, but ideologically, the two men appear polar opposites...
There are non-registered users abusing of this article's edition, putting lines like "Corrupt", "Communist", etc, which is different from reality.
I'm requesting this article to be edited by registered members only to avoid vandalism (User's IP: 82.113.6.19)
( Jale86 21:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC))
Irrelevant to the Chavez article, should be deleted when we rewrite and consolidate, perhaps in the Chomsky article? "One day after Chavez's speech, Chomsky's book rose to the No. 3 bestseller at online bookseller Amazon.com. [1] " Sandy 00:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Amazon.com rankings have been determined as unsuitable for incluson in other articles, so I removed a recently-added mention. CRGreathouse ( t | c) 00:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Fun. The bogus, invented number 53, based on original research and US-centric counting of non-existing presidential succession, which needs to be cleansed from Wiki, is now in the infobox. Sandy 01:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I note that this page now contains a vast amount of detail on Chavez's speech to the UN. Is this necessary? Sure, it deserves a mention. I know Chavez's rather typical demagogic comments just happen to be about a US leader, but does that mean it has the same resonance to the rest of us? What I'm asking is, do non-Americans get a say as to what they find important in an article? Or are we constantly " sleeping with the elephant" and at the mercy of the whims and twitches of what a foreign media finds important. The growing list of US politicians comments on this page means nothing to me at all. I'm here to learn about a Venezuelan President. I went through this when Castro's stomach exploded, and armies of editors rushed in to add full 10 line quotes from obscure US politicians, and endless "views from Washington" to the detriment of what I considered to be more important actual facts about Cuba. Does anyone else share this view, or am I all alone talking to myself? -- Zleitzen 14:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Just so we'll have them all in one place:
Sandy 17:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Sandy 17:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
After his comments on the floor of the UN, many have suggested Hugo Chavez is running for the DNC nomination for the 2008 presidential election. Mantion 06:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Reviewing this page again, I spotted an opinion about the Carlos Andrés Pérez administration sourced to what appears to be a piece by Saul Landau. Now in my opinion, Saul Landau is not the most reliable source on Latin American subjects, (I've stated this about Landau on other pages in the past) I reckon if I dug around a bit we could find where he has muddled various pieces of information - taken vague truths at face value and generally carried a very skewered view of events. Is it possible that we could find another source that reviews the Perez years - even if it says the same thing as Landau? Any thoughts?-- Zleitzen 00:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
JRSP, I don't understand this edit: there may have been one exit poll (not certain of that), but there are several other studies, reports, and reasons for the fraud claims. I thought the statement covered them all, not just the poll ?? Sandy 00:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I found a lot of information about Chavez that was incorrectly saved in Template space. I merely moved it to main space, but this solution is stopgap. I'm putting a note here to avoid placing three or four unattractive "Merge from" templates atop this page. I am requesting help from anyone who is a dedicated editor of this page:
Meanwhile, I will put a note on the talk page of the relevant contributor. Thanks -- Ling.Nut 15:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
They should all be deleted, the info is already incorporated and updated where needed, it all appears to be info temporarily used when Saravask created the entire series of Chavez info on Wiki. Much of the info is outdated, relies on non-reliable sources, and contains extensive POV. I've added prod tags to all, as they were only temporary, no longer needed. Sandy 15:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
-- Ling.Nut 19:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
JRSP, what is your point here? No one credibly believes the march was less than hundreds of thousands, as demonstrated by the pictures. (For the uninitiated, we're talking about a multiple lane freeway as far as the eye can see.) What is your point in reverting a number which I can just go and cite to any other number of sources? Your revert doesn't appear to be in good faith: anyone familiar with Venezuela's history knows that there are multiple sources, and there is no reason to object to the DOS. I've seen Metropolitan Police estimates, and since I did the work of finding a RELIABLE source once already, I'll let someone else look for more sources for now: in the meantime, I find it hard to understand this as a good faith revert. Sandy 00:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
[multiple edit conflicts] Yes, it was initially unsourced, as is most of Saravask's content. I've asked before if I, too, should start erasing facts well known to all of us just because Saravask never cited them. How many reliable sources do you want to substantiate what is apparent in pictures and everyone knows to be fact ?
[47]-- Zleitzen 01:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Lifsher, Marc. Venezuela Remains Deeply Divided --- President's Supporters And Critics Face Off; Few Try to Bridge the Gap. Wall Street Journal. (May 13, 2002). pg. A.15. "The Human Rights Commission of the Organization of American States, whose members visited Venezuela last week, called the situation disheartening. Both groups, said commission chairman Juan Mendez, are clinging to contradictory versions of who killed 17 people and wounded about 100 others during an April 11 march by at least 300,000 demonstrators on Mr. Chavez's presidential palace."
Pick your source, JRSP, and please change the ten back to hundred. You're welcome to leave the picture gallery, which is instructive. Sandy 01:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
A user named Tannim is now continuing the work of banned user MagicKirin by repeatedly entering this rather unenlightened edit to the page and reverting anyone who changes this.
It is spelt Chevex in each edit by the way. Users please ensure that this doesn't keep sneaking back in. Thanks.-- Zleitzen 12:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
First my ban was not legitimate, Jaranda refused to discuss it. Second it is an accurate description Chavez says with pride he associates with these countries. And if you follow the news today Oct 9, 2006, North Korea was condenmed by the entire international community.
As far as Chavez goes he is a illegitimate authoratarian leader who is the bigest threat to stability in this hemisphere. that desciption I did not put on the pages even though it is true —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tannim ( talk • contribs)