This 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. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
in the main box at the start of the page his religion is called roman catholic but later in the article about his personal life he comes across as thinking of himself as "christian". i vote that the roman catholic be change to christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peppermintschnapps ( talk • contribs) 22:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I suggest a thread on Chavez persecuting all non goverment controlled media such as Glbovision. http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/06/05/venezuela.tvstation.owner/index.html. Tannim1 ( talk) 00:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
No objection to it there as long as it figures prominently because it is major component in press freedom in Venezuela. Tannim1 ( talk) 09:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Has not Hugo shut down all the rest that don't folow faithfully the Bolviarian revolution? Tannim1 ( talk) 15:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Would this acceptible Globovision is the only non free media outlet in opposition to Chavez? http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/breakingnews/Media_s-freedom-in-Venezuela-a-top-concern-at-Inter-American-Press-Association-forum.html Tannim1 ( talk) 16:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be sporadic use of Investor's Business Daily as a source. In my opinion, it is a rag and should not be used. 71.198.176.141 ( talk) 04:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Richard Peterson 71.198.176.141 ( talk) 04:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Chavez increased by 638% the President's budget (MAYE PRIMERA - Caracas - 26/10/2009
El País)
--
84.137.87.217 (
talk) 10:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
In the third paragraph there's a small typo. Sorry if this isn't the correct place to request this edit.
the trouble is the text of this link: government of the United Statesstated
should be: government of the United States stated
Thanks!
MilkFilledAndroid ( talk) 21:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)MilkFilledAndroid
Where is the evidence, which is not in the article, of Hugo Chavez's African descent, and is it just a claim by him, or is there a black ancestor to prove it? JohnHistory ( talk) 03:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
If there is no evidence and it is not in the article then it is not an issue. The Four Deuces ( talk) 06:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Chavez is tri-racial. Having Spanish, Indigenous, and African ancestry. You will find that many Latin Americans are very mixed in terms of race. 71.180.84.156 ( talk) 02:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
This Israeli site: [ Israel] tells that Hugo Chavez's policies are pushing the Jews out of Venezuela. Agre22 ( talk) 14:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)agre22
- Citing your source, it look's quite differently...: " Venezuelan Jews say that as citizens of a state in which many have lost faith in the police and judicial system, they fear random violence far more than anti-Semitic attacks. They consistently cite crime as their main source of anxiety." So this entry should just be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.123.102.57 ( talk) 18:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
There's just one mention of the word criticism on the whole article. As a Venezuelan, living in Caracas, I can attest that this article is terribly unbiased. Clearly not all facts are being shown, there's not even a mention of Chavez personal friends, purchases, and the controversy surrounding him, and him personally. What happened to him purchasing a plane roughly the size of the Air Force one, for himself and himself only? What happened to him supporting the FARC, what happened to him telling Americans to "fuck off", calling them "Yankees de mierda"? Why isn't even his defeat at the 2008 reform, which he then implemented anyway, listed, or if that's asking for much, mentioned?
But just to make matters worse, the article is locked. I know that finding an impartial source regarding Chavez is something extremely difficult, but let's not dumb down well stated facts. People go to Wikipedia looking for information, and people believe this information. If Wikipedia administration wants to be responsible for releasing misinformation to the masses, then so be it, but at least don't do it while claiming you're void of any personal opinion. If whoever reads this wants to start modifying this article, then begin by saying that it's Chavez mission to deliberately misinform international media so he sells more petrol and so financing leftist movements around Latin America and enlarge the coffers of his ministers. Instead of doing things so much more trivial like, you know, fixing the huge power crisis [ [4]], reducing the rampant crime [ [5]], or just merely stopping the ridiculous corruption that takes place on his government [ [6]]
I'm just a badmouthing "esqualido", though, ain't I? -- 190.72.38.39 ( talk) 04:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Did chavez's propaganda office write this article? There is absolutely no balance in this piece; in fact, if a person read this article without knowing who Chavez is, they would probably think he's the next messiah. This guy is one of the most ruthless autocrats of our times and yet there is no mention of any of his many abuses. Wikipedia has allowed a small army of blatantly subjective editors with clear individual motivations ruin its core mission. This article needs to be deleted and redone; and everyone that was associated with putting together the current version needs to be banned ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.235.182 ( talk) 23:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
As it stands this page is a complete whitewash of Mr. Chavez, a puff piece, incredibly biased and NPOV in favor of him. Something needs to be done about it; this page is one of the thousands of examples of why Wikipedia got a reputation for being somewhat dodgy on the issue of accuracy and fairness. This talk page is another good example. George Bush negotiated with Osama bin Laden? When? He never did. Yet apparently some believe this, and believe that it is justification for hiding under the rug Mr. Chavez's deep connections to that collection of brutal war criminals known as FARC. The section on the media is completely biased towards Chavez; someone with no knowledge of the situation whose only source of information was this page would believe that the media outlets Chavez has shut down or tried to shut down deserved it because they were participating in a coup against Chavez, according to some, none of whom are exactly neutral observers. RCTV probably was, but that doesn't mean all the outlets Chavez has gone after were, or that his repression of media is justified.
No kidding, this is rediculous. It doesnt mention ANY of the contraversy that is associated with him, and there is a ton, nor does it mention any of the naked power grabs he's done to systematically shut down opponents and jail or exile them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.3.142 ( talk) 07:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
This page needs cleaned up, as I said it's an example of how Wikipedia has fallen from its peak when it did really seem that it would become a respectable source of reliable information. That didn't happen, Wikipedia does not exactly have a good rep for reliability, and pages like this are why. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.131.26.194 (
talk) 18:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
How come there's no mention here to Hugo Chavez's warmth towards narcoterrorists from FARC? Rd232? JRSP? Or will we pretend it never happened? Alekboyd ( talk) 18:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
They should be a heading on main page of Hugo's support of terrorism and his human rights violations. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Tannim1 (
talk •
contribs) 20:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The administrator of this page has a biased view of the topic, Wikipedia needs to review this. The content lacks the following verifiable data about Hugo Chavez:
- Chávez's support for the FARC has been known and tolerated for some time. Indeed, Venezuela has been harboring the group's leaders, who have operated openly within Venezuela's borders. Chávez's ban on overflights by U.S. planes participating in antinarcotics operations in Colombia and his government's refusal to cooperate with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration have also benefited the FARC immeasurably. It is no coincidence that during Chávez's presidency, Venezuela has turned into a major conduit for the transshipment of cocaine: [1]
- In 2008 Chavez asked Europe to take FARC off the list of terrorist organizations: He argued, "I say this even though somebody might be bothered by it: the FARC and the ELN are not terrorist groups. They are armies, real armies ... that occupy a space in Colombia." He added that the two groups' "insurgent forces" have a goal, "a project," that is "Bolivarian" and that "we respect." [2]
There is also few information on the dramatic economic situation of Venezuela in 2009:
- Leftist President Hugo Chavez called on Venezuelans on Wednesday to stop singing in the shower and to wash in three minutes because the oil-exporting nation is having problems supplying water and electricity. Venezuela has suffered several serious blackouts in the past year because of rapidly growing demand and under-investment, which has been aggravated by a drop in water levels in hydroelectric dams that provide most of its energy. [3] [4]
- Hugo Chavez has shown poor math skills. In a speech, he claimed that 7X8 = 52 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zagcKHmFoW4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Specialcontributor75 ( talk • contribs) 03:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The original page suffered an overhaul and an entire section devoted to criticism of Hugo Chávez policies and approaches was apparently deleted. I couldn't find it anywhere. Is Wikipedia going to close its eyes to the verifiable, sizeable portion of people who do not support him or his policies, and should have their accounts published for the world to see? Or is it, a work of pseudo-intelectuals, left-wing sympatizers who'd rather delete this material instead of keeping a really objective approach? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabreu ( talk • contribs) 14:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
^ THIS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.8.122 ( talk) 11:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I checked waybackmachine for the old material that was deleted. There isn't anything listed for this url:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_chavez. Unless someone can provide the old url for Hugo Chavez, the best course would be to re-create the section. I must assume the URL was changed causing the waybackmachine not to find the page? There is so much negative material on Chavez but the whole article hardly mentions that he has almost completed making himself dictator for life of Venezuela. --
Ftsmallwood (
talk) 03:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
There should be a section including arresting political opponents, closing down media and inteferings in several nations internal affairs. Tannim1 ( talk) 21:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I have located the separate page under "Criticism of Hugo Chavez": it was deleted because it was empty. Essentially: A "criticism" section was created because there was too much information, and the resulting page was so negative for Mr. Chavez image it was deemed biased (what did they expect from a 'Criticism' page for Mr. Chavez?), and apparently they moved the relevant criticism to separate articles -leaving just an empty page- and there doesn't seem to be any way of checking what it said. In the process, they transformed Mr. Chavez in a modern Robin Hood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Au leon ( talk • contribs) 01:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.131.26.194 (
talk) 07:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Under the "1992 coup" heading, the text describes how Chavez became blind in one eye because of a "carnosity" which, according some sites from an internet search, are "a fleshy excrescence." However, this term is not an accepted medical term. A search of "carnosity" at www.emedicine.com, a respected reference source authored by the medical community, returns no items. Similarly, neither a search in Merriam-Webster's online dictionary nor medical dictionary have listings for this word. It is possible that "carnosity" is an older medical term that is no longer used. Since "carnosity" is no longer found on a respected professional medical reference site, it is not a label which is used in the medical community for either communication or medical documentation. Therefore, I recommend that, at least, it be replaced with "eye disease." (My theory is that Chavez had a pinquecula that developed into a pterygium.) Crucifiedego ( talk) 04:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
In a well-known address, published throughout the world in dozens, if not hundreds of sources, came the following blurb, rv by the censors trying to clean up Chavez' image. Chavez, however, had plenty of time to refute this and refused to do so. So he either said it or he did not say it. What is the position of the censors on this one. Did he do/say this or not?
"Chavez is known to have had a sporadic correspondence with convicted terrorist Carlos the Jackal from the latter's prison cell. Chávez replied, with a letter in which he addresses Carlos as a "distinguished compatriot". [5] [6] [7] On June 1, 2006, Chávez referred to him as his "good friend" during a meeting of OPEC countries held in Caracas. [8]
On 20 November, 2009, Chávez publicly defended Carlos, saying that "he is wrongly considered to be a bad guy and is to be praised as a key revolutionary fighter, instead." [9]"
If, of course, it was a matter of obtaining the "proper" footnote, it could have been left their for a few minutes or days or even weeks until one was obtained. If it is false, of course, deleting it was the proper thing to do. Since it was censored out of hand with no time given to furnish a proper citation, I am assuming that the censor's position is that the report is false. That would be the only excuse for removing material that is generally thought to be accurate while temporarily lacking a valid citation. Student7 ( talk) 12:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
And, oh, what paper, television or website would you accept as a WP:RS to support this statement? Student7 ( talk) 13:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." [13] . There are well documented-reliable sources on this topic(Le Monde and The New York Times are named above). They also talk about it in Foreign Policy Magazine [14], The Guardian [15], NPR [16]. Also, the Jackal letter is here http://www.analitica.com/bitblio/hchavez/carta_chacal.asp - Your point about not having enough room is kind of weird. I could not find a mention on space limits for articles on Wikipedia's guidelines. This is not print media. If you look at other biographies, like Tiger Woods, you will find more content than in this one.
JRSP: I agree, we should not talk about an "open friendship". What the sources describe is the opinion of Hugo Chavez on Carlos the Jackal, which seems to be similar to his opinion of FARC. Also, your "notable consequence" argument is just your point of view. We should stick to the facts that can be supported by reliable sources. So I suggest presenting the content like this:
Hugo Chavez & terrorism
Hugo Chavez has expressed his opinion on the following terrorists(persons and organizations):
Carlos the Jackal In 2009, in a speech to international socialist politicians, Mr Chavez said Carlos, a Venezuelan, was not a terrorist but a key revolutionary fighter. He said he believed Carlos had been unfairly convicted, and called him "one of the great fighters of the Palestine Liberation Organisation".The Venezuelan leader has previously called Carlos a friend, and is reported to have exchanged letters with him in the past. [17] , [18] The French government reacted by summoning the Venezuelan embassador in Paris and demanding explanations [19]
Idi Amin
Mr. Chavez has also expressed his opinion on Idi Amin. He said "We thought he was a cannibal.. I don't know, maybe he was a great nationalist, a patriot." Idi Amin seized power in 1971. About 300,000 people were killed during his eight-year rule
[20]
Farc
- Chávez's support for the FARC has been known and tolerated for some time. Indeed, Venezuela has been harboring the group's leaders, who have operated openly within Venezuela's borders. Chávez's ban on overflights by U.S. planes participating in antinarcotics operations in Colombia and his government's refusal to cooperate with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration have also benefited the FARC immeasurably. It is no coincidence that during Chávez's presidency, Venezuela has turned into a major conduit for the transshipment of cocaine
[21]
- In 2008 Chavez asked Europe to take FARC off the list of terrorist organizations: He argued, "I say this even though somebody might be bothered by it: the FARC and the ELN are not terrorist groups. They are armies, real armies ... that occupy a space in Colombia." He added that the two groups' "insurgent forces" have a goal, "a project," that is "Bolivarian" and that "we respect." [22]
-Later on in 2008, Chavez urged Farc to end their rebellion "The guerrilla war is history," he said. "At this moment in Latin America, an armed guerrilla movement is out of place.". This was considered a surprise comment. Colombian Interior minister Carlos Holguin said the statement from Mr Chavez, a "great ally" of the rebels, was a "surprising". statement [23] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Specialcontributor75 ( talk • contribs) 14:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Mr Chávez appreciates direct televised interaction and has been known to place bugs and interact visibly through broadcast tv with certain individuals. Broadcast interception and surrepticious insertion of other programs in lieu of the standard is/was not unusual.(
Fractalhints (
talk) 02:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC))
What local consensus? Connormah ( talk) 14:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, are we talking about the same concept of "signature", here? There's a small place for the signature in the infobox. Off the top of my head: George Washington, Adolph Hitler, Henry VIII of England, Louis XIV of France, Mahatma Gandhi, Winston Churchill, Elizabeth I, Elizabeth II, Benito Mussolini, Abraham Lincoln. What makes you think signature isn't encyclopedic content? It's not a distraction at all. Readers aren't going to "get distracted" by something like that. Swarm Talk 07:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Regardless, including a signature does not violate any policy or go against any consensus that I know of, hence there's no reason not to include it. The claim that content would take away from the good stuff is not an argument to exclude the addition of that content. In other words, the content can be added. Note that there are many articles that have made it to Featured Article status that have included signatures.-- Swarm Talk 10:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The RFC is about removing the infobox parameter; and per WP:NOTAVOTE the nearly complete failure to address the arguments made shouldn't matter to the outcome. Regardless: make an actual argument why this particular signature should be included. (Would you include it in the body text, and if so, why?) Or start drafting arguments on why we should not include images of pets, shoe sizes, and other miscellaneous trivia in the infobox. Rd232 talk 13:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:DUCK this guy is pretty obviously insane. I'm sure it'd be quite easy to find sources to confirm this and recent events shouldn't even make that necessary. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 08:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
According to this several psychiatrists have diagnosed him as having NPD - this is not surprising and would explain his inventiveness with the truth. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 20:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The guy [Chavez] said the US used an earthquake weapon on Haiti. Not according to this Venezuelan blogger he didn't. [12] Wikispan ( talk) 00:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Why would two schoolteachers be living in a mud hut? Clivemacd ( talk) 17:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
not mentioning this obvious fact is one of the reasons why wikipedia has such a bad rap. Here are just a few, of a huge number, of sources that refer to him as such:
[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]
He controls the press, arrests political opponents, changes the laws to keep him in power in many ways, has abolished term limits so he can be "president for life," has disbanded congress on more than one occasion, and many others things. I have no idea why you guys don't think he is a dictator, but sources and actions confirm it. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 22:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
From the telegraph, "Cesar Perez, the governor of Tachira state, told The Sunday Telegraph that the military had already disarmed his police of most weapons bar handguns, and taken control of airports and highways.
"The political opposition is constantly persecuted here," he said. "We are turning into an authoritarian state where democratic rights are lost. Chavez has threatened me publicly with jail several times. I have one foot on the governor's office and the other in prison." "
From the Miami Herald, "In this deeply polarized country, the climate of fear could be seen in the answer of Nestor Moreno, a 58-year-old construction worker, when asked how he voted.
I voted yes because I didn't want to face reprisals for voting no, said Moreno. People lose jobs because they don't agree with the Chavez regimen.
Chavez is very authoritarian, Moreno added. He needs to be more democratic. Things have to be done his way or the highway." TheGoodLocust ( talk) 23:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
And the article would be improved by mentioning the questions about his mental health and his status as a dictator. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 06:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and for posterity (and the links it contains), here is a link to last diff of the AN thread about this subject. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 23:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
We want to think what we write here is important and what get censored/allowed is important. It is. But only to us. Just as in America, where a left-wing press is often ignored. Try this on for size http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/24/AR2010012402379.html Note the sinking levels of Chavez support. I guess Venezuelans aren't reading this article. Or, if they are, they don't believe it. People have a way of educating themselves. Censorship may exist here but not everywhere. Venezuelans will get the truth from somewhere, if not from us. Student7 ( talk) 23:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
An editor has tagged this article for lack of neutrality but has provided no reason for placing the template. Please provide clear reasons for the tag. In the meantime, I will remove it. The Four Deuces ( talk) 00:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
(out) SandyGeorgia, could you tell us what is in the BBC profile that is missing from this article causing it to be POV? Unless you provide reasons for your opinion about this article, how do you expect anyone to guess what you want done? The Four Deuces ( talk) 18:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The ownership and tendentious editing here make disucssion an unproductive use of one's time. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Amended to add latest reverts of POV tag, although clearly numerous editors find this article POV. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Chávez's policies have evoked controversy in Venezuela and abroad, receiving everything from vehement criticism to enthusiastic support. During the presidency of George W. Bush the government of the United States stated at various points that Chávez was a threat to democracy in Latin America.
Hugo Chavez came to power in 1999, and has inspired both adulation and loathing at home and abroad ever since. Venezuelans are split on their president: a majority say he speaks for the poor, while others say he has become increasingly autocratic.
It has occurred to me that the reasoning for censorship is that Chavez plays the strutting popinjay for his Latin low class followers. A drunk might say that he is friends with Carlos, and admires Idi Amin. but hardly a sober person. His followers evidently find that amusing. This probably does not play as well to upper class Latins and plays very poorly to an Anglophone audience who got strutting popinjays out of their system so long ago that they can't remember when it was. Even Huey Long did not talk like that and certainly not Robert LaFollette. Joseph McCarthy may have come close occasionally, but he was an genuine alcoholic.
Therefore it gets censored, not because it isn't true or reportable, but because it shows him poorly to a literate (and Anglophone) audience. Student7 ( talk) 12:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Once again: an NPOV tag is not a "bah, I don't like it" statement. It is to flag specific problems, which must be clear enough that someone can actually attempt to address them. Instead of edit warring about a tag without explaining, explain. Or better yet, try fixing, and see what happens. A dispute being sufficiently clear is a prerequisite for solving it, eg via WP:RFC or other WP:DR. Rd232 talk 14:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Student7, please read WP:SOAP and WP:TALK; comments and discussion such as your post (and your post of an op-ed above, when scores of reliable sources say the same thing) do nothing to advance this article, and are offensive (not all of Chavez's "followers" are "Latin low class" and that's an offensive characterization even if it were true). Commentary on article talk pages should focus on improving article content using reliable sources, not polemics and hyperbole. There is plenty of work to be done on these articles, and I'm not interested in doing all the work myself. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela; there's lots of work there that needs to be done. Or you could get busy answering Rd232's query about why this article is POV, so I don't have to do everything. Or you could get busy cleaning up Economy of Venezuela, which needs a week's work just to make it readable, much less accurate and neutral. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I have presented the BBC profile of Chavez as but one of many examples of how biased this article is; it is merely a sample-- there are scores of reliable sources that are similar, and analyzing all of them would merely fill up this talk page with redundancy. Although the discrepancies between due weight of reliable sources and this article are abundant and easily apparent, the POV tag has (yet again) been edit warred away.
The current lead of this article contains not one single critical commentary of Chavez, although every mainstream reliable source one can read about Chavez contains pro, con and neutral commentary. It is unabashed and biased hagiography. All this lead says is:
Chávez's policies have evoked controversy in Venezuela and abroad, receiving everything from vehement criticism to enthusiastic support. During the presidency of George W. Bush the government of the United States stated at various points that Chávez was a threat to democracy in Latin America.
In other words, a whitewash under the vague term "controversy", as if the "vehement criticism" is in the same proportion as the "enthusiastic support" (ignoring the preponderance of reliable sources) and an implication that only the Bush administration has found fault with Chavez's administration (ignoring other fallouts with world leaders, e.g. "In November 2007 Mr Chavez fell out with Spain after a run-in with King Juan Carlos during the final session of Ibero-American summit in Santiago."). Focusing for now on the lead, which should (bold emphasis mine):
serve both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, ...
The current lead makes no attempt to give due weight to Chavez according to reliable sources.
Next, examining the BBC profile, we find balanced statements throughout that examine both sides, examples:
Next, we find very notable items completely missing from our lead:
Further problems:
This statement is completely outdated (see the op-ed posted above by Student7, which contains commentary backed by numerous reliable sources:
Many other governments sympathize with his ideology or welcome his bilateral trade and reciprocal aid agreements.
and this commentary is misleading:
In 2005 and 2006 he was named one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people.
Time magazine's reasons for maing him influential weren't exactly ... ummmm ... positive; they were related to his "deep pocket" in spreading socialism, which has now been shown to have failed, and the amount of controversy he evokes-- that is missing from our lead.
And completely missing from our lead is any mention of the deterioration in human rights, control of the judiciary, consolidation of power, and numerous other issues well documented and sourced in daughter and other articles, and which should be included and expanded in this article, along with an analysis of the failed economic policies and rampant corruption and crime. Please don't pretend not to know where to find those sources; those who have admin tools can access the old Criticism article, whose content vanished, and I've added sources to many other articles which need not be repeated here.
That's one article only: same could be done with scores of others. That's the LEAD only. This article is POV, and does not give due weight to reliable sources. Please stop edit warring away the POV tag on a clearly POV article. And will the article owners please at least fix the lead? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The top section is perfectly neutral at the present time. The lead of Tony Blair and George W. Bush contains not a single line of critical commentary despite voluminous criticism at home and abroad, plus declining approval ratings, but all three articles do make clear that these individuals have received a large amount of criticism and serious controversies are described in the main body and elsewhere. One need only use the scroll function and left mouse button to learn more. Wikispan ( talk) 18:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
From my local library (albeit a year outdated, Hugo Chavez, Source: Contemporary Hispanic Biography. Vol. 1. Gale Group, 2002. Updated: 08/12/2009),
The charismatic Hugo Chávez, elected president of Venezuela in 1998, is sometimes described by political pundits as Latin America's most controversial leader after Fidel Castro. Chávez has set this mineral- and resource-rich South American nation on a course of political, economic, and social reform he describes as a "Third Way" between a socialist and a free-market economy. In 2002, Chávez faced growing national discontent as his promised economic betterments were not forthcoming. His popularity was re-affirmed by the people of Venezuela in the recall election of August 2004, wherein he took 58 percent of the vote. However, in 2007, voters rejected a set of constitutional amendments that would have given him sweeping powers.
From LexisNexis:
EuroNews - English, February 18, 2009, Wednesday Hugo: Profile of a political survivor
Hugo Chavez has waited a long time for this result. After failing in a first referendum in 2007, he has finally got what he wants - the possibility of staying in office indefinitely. ... Social programmes have been developed for the underprivileged. But the country's growth and economy are dependent on its oil wealth. And, as oil prices collapse under the global economic crisis, crippling Venezuela's finances, the leftist leader faces a slowing economy. His opponents condemn rampant corruption. Alongside violence and inflation, it is a regular target of anti-Chavez anger that has so far failed to sway loyalists of this political survivor.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I listed in edit summary additional issues, [22] [23] [24] but those (and dead links and reliable source tags) were reverted by User:The Four Deuces before I even had time to discuss those issues here. And THAT is why working on article content here can't progress. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I have re-added the POV tag while I review this discussion. after a brief skim it seems as though the justification for removing the tag is that critical material was moved to other articles, which sounds very much like an unpleasant form of wp:POV fork, which would be unacceptable. please leave the tags on while I go through the arguments more carefully. -- Ludwigs2 20:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
@ FourDeuces: You may be right; I need to look over the material. however, the POV tags do no harm to the article and serve as a notice that there is a debate over the content. they should remain in place until the issue is resolved.
@ Sandy: it would help if you could go through the article histories on the daughter articles and provide some diffs of the specific criticisms and sources you want to re-include. -- Ludwigs2 21:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
(out) These are the two statements in the article that are sourced to Venezuelanalysis.com:
"Every factory must be a school to educate, like Che Guevara said, to produce not only briquettes, steel, and aluminum, but also, above all, the new man and woman, the new society, the socialist society." — Hugo Chávez, at a May 2009 socialist transformation workshop [52]
After the coup, local cable channels, including RCTV, were also obliged to carry government programming, including Chavez's marathon speeches, which can last up to seven hours. RCTV could broadcast via cable and satellite and was widely viewable in Venezuela until January 24, 2010 [65] (also sourced to the New York Times.
In no sense can this be seen as "biased". The Four Deuces ( talk) 00:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Although not all of the hits refer to President Hugo Chavez, the first ten hits include the following:
It may well be that many of the 15,100 hits do not provide relevant sources, but it does show that there are numerous sources available contrary to your statement about a "paucity of sources. The Four Deuces ( talk) 00:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I am reading what you write but you speak in vague generalities and all your claims have proved to be false. The Four Deuces ( talk) 00:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
(out) Here are some recent journal articles available on Questia:
I am sure that more articles can be found by going to a library. Speaking of Hitler, Shifter's article compares Chavez to Juan Peron, which is fine if you are trying to explain Chavez to a US foreign policy audience, but is an oversimplification.
The Four Deuces ( talk) 04:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
You may believe that stating in the article that Chavez is an insane dictator who supports terrorism is neutral, but it seems one-sided to me. The Four Deuces ( talk) 20:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Other governments, including the Venezuelan government, are less hostile towards the FARC-EP. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez publicly rejected their classification as "terrorists" in January 2008, considering them to be "real armies", and called on the Colombian and other governments to recognize the guerrillas as a “belligerent force”, arguing that this would then oblige them to renounce kidnappings and terror acts, and respect the Geneva Conventions.
{{ Chatterbox}}
Brinkley, Joel (25 February 2010). "Venezuela on verge of collapse, thanks to Hugo Chavez". The Sacramento Bee. McClatchy-Tribune News Service. Retrieved 25 February 2010.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month=
and |coauthors=
(
help)
This 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. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
in the main box at the start of the page his religion is called roman catholic but later in the article about his personal life he comes across as thinking of himself as "christian". i vote that the roman catholic be change to christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peppermintschnapps ( talk • contribs) 22:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I suggest a thread on Chavez persecuting all non goverment controlled media such as Glbovision. http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/06/05/venezuela.tvstation.owner/index.html. Tannim1 ( talk) 00:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
No objection to it there as long as it figures prominently because it is major component in press freedom in Venezuela. Tannim1 ( talk) 09:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Has not Hugo shut down all the rest that don't folow faithfully the Bolviarian revolution? Tannim1 ( talk) 15:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Would this acceptible Globovision is the only non free media outlet in opposition to Chavez? http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/breakingnews/Media_s-freedom-in-Venezuela-a-top-concern-at-Inter-American-Press-Association-forum.html Tannim1 ( talk) 16:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be sporadic use of Investor's Business Daily as a source. In my opinion, it is a rag and should not be used. 71.198.176.141 ( talk) 04:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Richard Peterson 71.198.176.141 ( talk) 04:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Chavez increased by 638% the President's budget (MAYE PRIMERA - Caracas - 26/10/2009
El País)
--
84.137.87.217 (
talk) 10:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
In the third paragraph there's a small typo. Sorry if this isn't the correct place to request this edit.
the trouble is the text of this link: government of the United Statesstated
should be: government of the United States stated
Thanks!
MilkFilledAndroid ( talk) 21:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)MilkFilledAndroid
Where is the evidence, which is not in the article, of Hugo Chavez's African descent, and is it just a claim by him, or is there a black ancestor to prove it? JohnHistory ( talk) 03:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
If there is no evidence and it is not in the article then it is not an issue. The Four Deuces ( talk) 06:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Chavez is tri-racial. Having Spanish, Indigenous, and African ancestry. You will find that many Latin Americans are very mixed in terms of race. 71.180.84.156 ( talk) 02:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
This Israeli site: [ Israel] tells that Hugo Chavez's policies are pushing the Jews out of Venezuela. Agre22 ( talk) 14:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)agre22
- Citing your source, it look's quite differently...: " Venezuelan Jews say that as citizens of a state in which many have lost faith in the police and judicial system, they fear random violence far more than anti-Semitic attacks. They consistently cite crime as their main source of anxiety." So this entry should just be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.123.102.57 ( talk) 18:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
There's just one mention of the word criticism on the whole article. As a Venezuelan, living in Caracas, I can attest that this article is terribly unbiased. Clearly not all facts are being shown, there's not even a mention of Chavez personal friends, purchases, and the controversy surrounding him, and him personally. What happened to him purchasing a plane roughly the size of the Air Force one, for himself and himself only? What happened to him supporting the FARC, what happened to him telling Americans to "fuck off", calling them "Yankees de mierda"? Why isn't even his defeat at the 2008 reform, which he then implemented anyway, listed, or if that's asking for much, mentioned?
But just to make matters worse, the article is locked. I know that finding an impartial source regarding Chavez is something extremely difficult, but let's not dumb down well stated facts. People go to Wikipedia looking for information, and people believe this information. If Wikipedia administration wants to be responsible for releasing misinformation to the masses, then so be it, but at least don't do it while claiming you're void of any personal opinion. If whoever reads this wants to start modifying this article, then begin by saying that it's Chavez mission to deliberately misinform international media so he sells more petrol and so financing leftist movements around Latin America and enlarge the coffers of his ministers. Instead of doing things so much more trivial like, you know, fixing the huge power crisis [ [4]], reducing the rampant crime [ [5]], or just merely stopping the ridiculous corruption that takes place on his government [ [6]]
I'm just a badmouthing "esqualido", though, ain't I? -- 190.72.38.39 ( talk) 04:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Did chavez's propaganda office write this article? There is absolutely no balance in this piece; in fact, if a person read this article without knowing who Chavez is, they would probably think he's the next messiah. This guy is one of the most ruthless autocrats of our times and yet there is no mention of any of his many abuses. Wikipedia has allowed a small army of blatantly subjective editors with clear individual motivations ruin its core mission. This article needs to be deleted and redone; and everyone that was associated with putting together the current version needs to be banned ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.235.182 ( talk) 23:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
As it stands this page is a complete whitewash of Mr. Chavez, a puff piece, incredibly biased and NPOV in favor of him. Something needs to be done about it; this page is one of the thousands of examples of why Wikipedia got a reputation for being somewhat dodgy on the issue of accuracy and fairness. This talk page is another good example. George Bush negotiated with Osama bin Laden? When? He never did. Yet apparently some believe this, and believe that it is justification for hiding under the rug Mr. Chavez's deep connections to that collection of brutal war criminals known as FARC. The section on the media is completely biased towards Chavez; someone with no knowledge of the situation whose only source of information was this page would believe that the media outlets Chavez has shut down or tried to shut down deserved it because they were participating in a coup against Chavez, according to some, none of whom are exactly neutral observers. RCTV probably was, but that doesn't mean all the outlets Chavez has gone after were, or that his repression of media is justified.
No kidding, this is rediculous. It doesnt mention ANY of the contraversy that is associated with him, and there is a ton, nor does it mention any of the naked power grabs he's done to systematically shut down opponents and jail or exile them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.3.142 ( talk) 07:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
This page needs cleaned up, as I said it's an example of how Wikipedia has fallen from its peak when it did really seem that it would become a respectable source of reliable information. That didn't happen, Wikipedia does not exactly have a good rep for reliability, and pages like this are why. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.131.26.194 (
talk) 18:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
How come there's no mention here to Hugo Chavez's warmth towards narcoterrorists from FARC? Rd232? JRSP? Or will we pretend it never happened? Alekboyd ( talk) 18:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
They should be a heading on main page of Hugo's support of terrorism and his human rights violations. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Tannim1 (
talk •
contribs) 20:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The administrator of this page has a biased view of the topic, Wikipedia needs to review this. The content lacks the following verifiable data about Hugo Chavez:
- Chávez's support for the FARC has been known and tolerated for some time. Indeed, Venezuela has been harboring the group's leaders, who have operated openly within Venezuela's borders. Chávez's ban on overflights by U.S. planes participating in antinarcotics operations in Colombia and his government's refusal to cooperate with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration have also benefited the FARC immeasurably. It is no coincidence that during Chávez's presidency, Venezuela has turned into a major conduit for the transshipment of cocaine: [1]
- In 2008 Chavez asked Europe to take FARC off the list of terrorist organizations: He argued, "I say this even though somebody might be bothered by it: the FARC and the ELN are not terrorist groups. They are armies, real armies ... that occupy a space in Colombia." He added that the two groups' "insurgent forces" have a goal, "a project," that is "Bolivarian" and that "we respect." [2]
There is also few information on the dramatic economic situation of Venezuela in 2009:
- Leftist President Hugo Chavez called on Venezuelans on Wednesday to stop singing in the shower and to wash in three minutes because the oil-exporting nation is having problems supplying water and electricity. Venezuela has suffered several serious blackouts in the past year because of rapidly growing demand and under-investment, which has been aggravated by a drop in water levels in hydroelectric dams that provide most of its energy. [3] [4]
- Hugo Chavez has shown poor math skills. In a speech, he claimed that 7X8 = 52 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zagcKHmFoW4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Specialcontributor75 ( talk • contribs) 03:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The original page suffered an overhaul and an entire section devoted to criticism of Hugo Chávez policies and approaches was apparently deleted. I couldn't find it anywhere. Is Wikipedia going to close its eyes to the verifiable, sizeable portion of people who do not support him or his policies, and should have their accounts published for the world to see? Or is it, a work of pseudo-intelectuals, left-wing sympatizers who'd rather delete this material instead of keeping a really objective approach? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabreu ( talk • contribs) 14:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
^ THIS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.8.122 ( talk) 11:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I checked waybackmachine for the old material that was deleted. There isn't anything listed for this url:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_chavez. Unless someone can provide the old url for Hugo Chavez, the best course would be to re-create the section. I must assume the URL was changed causing the waybackmachine not to find the page? There is so much negative material on Chavez but the whole article hardly mentions that he has almost completed making himself dictator for life of Venezuela. --
Ftsmallwood (
talk) 03:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
There should be a section including arresting political opponents, closing down media and inteferings in several nations internal affairs. Tannim1 ( talk) 21:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I have located the separate page under "Criticism of Hugo Chavez": it was deleted because it was empty. Essentially: A "criticism" section was created because there was too much information, and the resulting page was so negative for Mr. Chavez image it was deemed biased (what did they expect from a 'Criticism' page for Mr. Chavez?), and apparently they moved the relevant criticism to separate articles -leaving just an empty page- and there doesn't seem to be any way of checking what it said. In the process, they transformed Mr. Chavez in a modern Robin Hood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Au leon ( talk • contribs) 01:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.131.26.194 (
talk) 07:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Under the "1992 coup" heading, the text describes how Chavez became blind in one eye because of a "carnosity" which, according some sites from an internet search, are "a fleshy excrescence." However, this term is not an accepted medical term. A search of "carnosity" at www.emedicine.com, a respected reference source authored by the medical community, returns no items. Similarly, neither a search in Merriam-Webster's online dictionary nor medical dictionary have listings for this word. It is possible that "carnosity" is an older medical term that is no longer used. Since "carnosity" is no longer found on a respected professional medical reference site, it is not a label which is used in the medical community for either communication or medical documentation. Therefore, I recommend that, at least, it be replaced with "eye disease." (My theory is that Chavez had a pinquecula that developed into a pterygium.) Crucifiedego ( talk) 04:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
In a well-known address, published throughout the world in dozens, if not hundreds of sources, came the following blurb, rv by the censors trying to clean up Chavez' image. Chavez, however, had plenty of time to refute this and refused to do so. So he either said it or he did not say it. What is the position of the censors on this one. Did he do/say this or not?
"Chavez is known to have had a sporadic correspondence with convicted terrorist Carlos the Jackal from the latter's prison cell. Chávez replied, with a letter in which he addresses Carlos as a "distinguished compatriot". [5] [6] [7] On June 1, 2006, Chávez referred to him as his "good friend" during a meeting of OPEC countries held in Caracas. [8]
On 20 November, 2009, Chávez publicly defended Carlos, saying that "he is wrongly considered to be a bad guy and is to be praised as a key revolutionary fighter, instead." [9]"
If, of course, it was a matter of obtaining the "proper" footnote, it could have been left their for a few minutes or days or even weeks until one was obtained. If it is false, of course, deleting it was the proper thing to do. Since it was censored out of hand with no time given to furnish a proper citation, I am assuming that the censor's position is that the report is false. That would be the only excuse for removing material that is generally thought to be accurate while temporarily lacking a valid citation. Student7 ( talk) 12:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
And, oh, what paper, television or website would you accept as a WP:RS to support this statement? Student7 ( talk) 13:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." [13] . There are well documented-reliable sources on this topic(Le Monde and The New York Times are named above). They also talk about it in Foreign Policy Magazine [14], The Guardian [15], NPR [16]. Also, the Jackal letter is here http://www.analitica.com/bitblio/hchavez/carta_chacal.asp - Your point about not having enough room is kind of weird. I could not find a mention on space limits for articles on Wikipedia's guidelines. This is not print media. If you look at other biographies, like Tiger Woods, you will find more content than in this one.
JRSP: I agree, we should not talk about an "open friendship". What the sources describe is the opinion of Hugo Chavez on Carlos the Jackal, which seems to be similar to his opinion of FARC. Also, your "notable consequence" argument is just your point of view. We should stick to the facts that can be supported by reliable sources. So I suggest presenting the content like this:
Hugo Chavez & terrorism
Hugo Chavez has expressed his opinion on the following terrorists(persons and organizations):
Carlos the Jackal In 2009, in a speech to international socialist politicians, Mr Chavez said Carlos, a Venezuelan, was not a terrorist but a key revolutionary fighter. He said he believed Carlos had been unfairly convicted, and called him "one of the great fighters of the Palestine Liberation Organisation".The Venezuelan leader has previously called Carlos a friend, and is reported to have exchanged letters with him in the past. [17] , [18] The French government reacted by summoning the Venezuelan embassador in Paris and demanding explanations [19]
Idi Amin
Mr. Chavez has also expressed his opinion on Idi Amin. He said "We thought he was a cannibal.. I don't know, maybe he was a great nationalist, a patriot." Idi Amin seized power in 1971. About 300,000 people were killed during his eight-year rule
[20]
Farc
- Chávez's support for the FARC has been known and tolerated for some time. Indeed, Venezuela has been harboring the group's leaders, who have operated openly within Venezuela's borders. Chávez's ban on overflights by U.S. planes participating in antinarcotics operations in Colombia and his government's refusal to cooperate with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration have also benefited the FARC immeasurably. It is no coincidence that during Chávez's presidency, Venezuela has turned into a major conduit for the transshipment of cocaine
[21]
- In 2008 Chavez asked Europe to take FARC off the list of terrorist organizations: He argued, "I say this even though somebody might be bothered by it: the FARC and the ELN are not terrorist groups. They are armies, real armies ... that occupy a space in Colombia." He added that the two groups' "insurgent forces" have a goal, "a project," that is "Bolivarian" and that "we respect." [22]
-Later on in 2008, Chavez urged Farc to end their rebellion "The guerrilla war is history," he said. "At this moment in Latin America, an armed guerrilla movement is out of place.". This was considered a surprise comment. Colombian Interior minister Carlos Holguin said the statement from Mr Chavez, a "great ally" of the rebels, was a "surprising". statement [23] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Specialcontributor75 ( talk • contribs) 14:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Mr Chávez appreciates direct televised interaction and has been known to place bugs and interact visibly through broadcast tv with certain individuals. Broadcast interception and surrepticious insertion of other programs in lieu of the standard is/was not unusual.(
Fractalhints (
talk) 02:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC))
What local consensus? Connormah ( talk) 14:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, are we talking about the same concept of "signature", here? There's a small place for the signature in the infobox. Off the top of my head: George Washington, Adolph Hitler, Henry VIII of England, Louis XIV of France, Mahatma Gandhi, Winston Churchill, Elizabeth I, Elizabeth II, Benito Mussolini, Abraham Lincoln. What makes you think signature isn't encyclopedic content? It's not a distraction at all. Readers aren't going to "get distracted" by something like that. Swarm Talk 07:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Regardless, including a signature does not violate any policy or go against any consensus that I know of, hence there's no reason not to include it. The claim that content would take away from the good stuff is not an argument to exclude the addition of that content. In other words, the content can be added. Note that there are many articles that have made it to Featured Article status that have included signatures.-- Swarm Talk 10:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The RFC is about removing the infobox parameter; and per WP:NOTAVOTE the nearly complete failure to address the arguments made shouldn't matter to the outcome. Regardless: make an actual argument why this particular signature should be included. (Would you include it in the body text, and if so, why?) Or start drafting arguments on why we should not include images of pets, shoe sizes, and other miscellaneous trivia in the infobox. Rd232 talk 13:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:DUCK this guy is pretty obviously insane. I'm sure it'd be quite easy to find sources to confirm this and recent events shouldn't even make that necessary. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 08:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
According to this several psychiatrists have diagnosed him as having NPD - this is not surprising and would explain his inventiveness with the truth. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 20:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The guy [Chavez] said the US used an earthquake weapon on Haiti. Not according to this Venezuelan blogger he didn't. [12] Wikispan ( talk) 00:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Why would two schoolteachers be living in a mud hut? Clivemacd ( talk) 17:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
not mentioning this obvious fact is one of the reasons why wikipedia has such a bad rap. Here are just a few, of a huge number, of sources that refer to him as such:
[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]
He controls the press, arrests political opponents, changes the laws to keep him in power in many ways, has abolished term limits so he can be "president for life," has disbanded congress on more than one occasion, and many others things. I have no idea why you guys don't think he is a dictator, but sources and actions confirm it. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 22:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
From the telegraph, "Cesar Perez, the governor of Tachira state, told The Sunday Telegraph that the military had already disarmed his police of most weapons bar handguns, and taken control of airports and highways.
"The political opposition is constantly persecuted here," he said. "We are turning into an authoritarian state where democratic rights are lost. Chavez has threatened me publicly with jail several times. I have one foot on the governor's office and the other in prison." "
From the Miami Herald, "In this deeply polarized country, the climate of fear could be seen in the answer of Nestor Moreno, a 58-year-old construction worker, when asked how he voted.
I voted yes because I didn't want to face reprisals for voting no, said Moreno. People lose jobs because they don't agree with the Chavez regimen.
Chavez is very authoritarian, Moreno added. He needs to be more democratic. Things have to be done his way or the highway." TheGoodLocust ( talk) 23:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
And the article would be improved by mentioning the questions about his mental health and his status as a dictator. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 06:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and for posterity (and the links it contains), here is a link to last diff of the AN thread about this subject. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 23:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
We want to think what we write here is important and what get censored/allowed is important. It is. But only to us. Just as in America, where a left-wing press is often ignored. Try this on for size http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/24/AR2010012402379.html Note the sinking levels of Chavez support. I guess Venezuelans aren't reading this article. Or, if they are, they don't believe it. People have a way of educating themselves. Censorship may exist here but not everywhere. Venezuelans will get the truth from somewhere, if not from us. Student7 ( talk) 23:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
An editor has tagged this article for lack of neutrality but has provided no reason for placing the template. Please provide clear reasons for the tag. In the meantime, I will remove it. The Four Deuces ( talk) 00:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
(out) SandyGeorgia, could you tell us what is in the BBC profile that is missing from this article causing it to be POV? Unless you provide reasons for your opinion about this article, how do you expect anyone to guess what you want done? The Four Deuces ( talk) 18:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The ownership and tendentious editing here make disucssion an unproductive use of one's time. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Amended to add latest reverts of POV tag, although clearly numerous editors find this article POV. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Chávez's policies have evoked controversy in Venezuela and abroad, receiving everything from vehement criticism to enthusiastic support. During the presidency of George W. Bush the government of the United States stated at various points that Chávez was a threat to democracy in Latin America.
Hugo Chavez came to power in 1999, and has inspired both adulation and loathing at home and abroad ever since. Venezuelans are split on their president: a majority say he speaks for the poor, while others say he has become increasingly autocratic.
It has occurred to me that the reasoning for censorship is that Chavez plays the strutting popinjay for his Latin low class followers. A drunk might say that he is friends with Carlos, and admires Idi Amin. but hardly a sober person. His followers evidently find that amusing. This probably does not play as well to upper class Latins and plays very poorly to an Anglophone audience who got strutting popinjays out of their system so long ago that they can't remember when it was. Even Huey Long did not talk like that and certainly not Robert LaFollette. Joseph McCarthy may have come close occasionally, but he was an genuine alcoholic.
Therefore it gets censored, not because it isn't true or reportable, but because it shows him poorly to a literate (and Anglophone) audience. Student7 ( talk) 12:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Once again: an NPOV tag is not a "bah, I don't like it" statement. It is to flag specific problems, which must be clear enough that someone can actually attempt to address them. Instead of edit warring about a tag without explaining, explain. Or better yet, try fixing, and see what happens. A dispute being sufficiently clear is a prerequisite for solving it, eg via WP:RFC or other WP:DR. Rd232 talk 14:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Student7, please read WP:SOAP and WP:TALK; comments and discussion such as your post (and your post of an op-ed above, when scores of reliable sources say the same thing) do nothing to advance this article, and are offensive (not all of Chavez's "followers" are "Latin low class" and that's an offensive characterization even if it were true). Commentary on article talk pages should focus on improving article content using reliable sources, not polemics and hyperbole. There is plenty of work to be done on these articles, and I'm not interested in doing all the work myself. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela; there's lots of work there that needs to be done. Or you could get busy answering Rd232's query about why this article is POV, so I don't have to do everything. Or you could get busy cleaning up Economy of Venezuela, which needs a week's work just to make it readable, much less accurate and neutral. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I have presented the BBC profile of Chavez as but one of many examples of how biased this article is; it is merely a sample-- there are scores of reliable sources that are similar, and analyzing all of them would merely fill up this talk page with redundancy. Although the discrepancies between due weight of reliable sources and this article are abundant and easily apparent, the POV tag has (yet again) been edit warred away.
The current lead of this article contains not one single critical commentary of Chavez, although every mainstream reliable source one can read about Chavez contains pro, con and neutral commentary. It is unabashed and biased hagiography. All this lead says is:
Chávez's policies have evoked controversy in Venezuela and abroad, receiving everything from vehement criticism to enthusiastic support. During the presidency of George W. Bush the government of the United States stated at various points that Chávez was a threat to democracy in Latin America.
In other words, a whitewash under the vague term "controversy", as if the "vehement criticism" is in the same proportion as the "enthusiastic support" (ignoring the preponderance of reliable sources) and an implication that only the Bush administration has found fault with Chavez's administration (ignoring other fallouts with world leaders, e.g. "In November 2007 Mr Chavez fell out with Spain after a run-in with King Juan Carlos during the final session of Ibero-American summit in Santiago."). Focusing for now on the lead, which should (bold emphasis mine):
serve both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, ...
The current lead makes no attempt to give due weight to Chavez according to reliable sources.
Next, examining the BBC profile, we find balanced statements throughout that examine both sides, examples:
Next, we find very notable items completely missing from our lead:
Further problems:
This statement is completely outdated (see the op-ed posted above by Student7, which contains commentary backed by numerous reliable sources:
Many other governments sympathize with his ideology or welcome his bilateral trade and reciprocal aid agreements.
and this commentary is misleading:
In 2005 and 2006 he was named one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people.
Time magazine's reasons for maing him influential weren't exactly ... ummmm ... positive; they were related to his "deep pocket" in spreading socialism, which has now been shown to have failed, and the amount of controversy he evokes-- that is missing from our lead.
And completely missing from our lead is any mention of the deterioration in human rights, control of the judiciary, consolidation of power, and numerous other issues well documented and sourced in daughter and other articles, and which should be included and expanded in this article, along with an analysis of the failed economic policies and rampant corruption and crime. Please don't pretend not to know where to find those sources; those who have admin tools can access the old Criticism article, whose content vanished, and I've added sources to many other articles which need not be repeated here.
That's one article only: same could be done with scores of others. That's the LEAD only. This article is POV, and does not give due weight to reliable sources. Please stop edit warring away the POV tag on a clearly POV article. And will the article owners please at least fix the lead? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The top section is perfectly neutral at the present time. The lead of Tony Blair and George W. Bush contains not a single line of critical commentary despite voluminous criticism at home and abroad, plus declining approval ratings, but all three articles do make clear that these individuals have received a large amount of criticism and serious controversies are described in the main body and elsewhere. One need only use the scroll function and left mouse button to learn more. Wikispan ( talk) 18:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
From my local library (albeit a year outdated, Hugo Chavez, Source: Contemporary Hispanic Biography. Vol. 1. Gale Group, 2002. Updated: 08/12/2009),
The charismatic Hugo Chávez, elected president of Venezuela in 1998, is sometimes described by political pundits as Latin America's most controversial leader after Fidel Castro. Chávez has set this mineral- and resource-rich South American nation on a course of political, economic, and social reform he describes as a "Third Way" between a socialist and a free-market economy. In 2002, Chávez faced growing national discontent as his promised economic betterments were not forthcoming. His popularity was re-affirmed by the people of Venezuela in the recall election of August 2004, wherein he took 58 percent of the vote. However, in 2007, voters rejected a set of constitutional amendments that would have given him sweeping powers.
From LexisNexis:
EuroNews - English, February 18, 2009, Wednesday Hugo: Profile of a political survivor
Hugo Chavez has waited a long time for this result. After failing in a first referendum in 2007, he has finally got what he wants - the possibility of staying in office indefinitely. ... Social programmes have been developed for the underprivileged. But the country's growth and economy are dependent on its oil wealth. And, as oil prices collapse under the global economic crisis, crippling Venezuela's finances, the leftist leader faces a slowing economy. His opponents condemn rampant corruption. Alongside violence and inflation, it is a regular target of anti-Chavez anger that has so far failed to sway loyalists of this political survivor.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I listed in edit summary additional issues, [22] [23] [24] but those (and dead links and reliable source tags) were reverted by User:The Four Deuces before I even had time to discuss those issues here. And THAT is why working on article content here can't progress. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I have re-added the POV tag while I review this discussion. after a brief skim it seems as though the justification for removing the tag is that critical material was moved to other articles, which sounds very much like an unpleasant form of wp:POV fork, which would be unacceptable. please leave the tags on while I go through the arguments more carefully. -- Ludwigs2 20:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
@ FourDeuces: You may be right; I need to look over the material. however, the POV tags do no harm to the article and serve as a notice that there is a debate over the content. they should remain in place until the issue is resolved.
@ Sandy: it would help if you could go through the article histories on the daughter articles and provide some diffs of the specific criticisms and sources you want to re-include. -- Ludwigs2 21:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
(out) These are the two statements in the article that are sourced to Venezuelanalysis.com:
"Every factory must be a school to educate, like Che Guevara said, to produce not only briquettes, steel, and aluminum, but also, above all, the new man and woman, the new society, the socialist society." — Hugo Chávez, at a May 2009 socialist transformation workshop [52]
After the coup, local cable channels, including RCTV, were also obliged to carry government programming, including Chavez's marathon speeches, which can last up to seven hours. RCTV could broadcast via cable and satellite and was widely viewable in Venezuela until January 24, 2010 [65] (also sourced to the New York Times.
In no sense can this be seen as "biased". The Four Deuces ( talk) 00:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Although not all of the hits refer to President Hugo Chavez, the first ten hits include the following:
It may well be that many of the 15,100 hits do not provide relevant sources, but it does show that there are numerous sources available contrary to your statement about a "paucity of sources. The Four Deuces ( talk) 00:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I am reading what you write but you speak in vague generalities and all your claims have proved to be false. The Four Deuces ( talk) 00:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
(out) Here are some recent journal articles available on Questia:
I am sure that more articles can be found by going to a library. Speaking of Hitler, Shifter's article compares Chavez to Juan Peron, which is fine if you are trying to explain Chavez to a US foreign policy audience, but is an oversimplification.
The Four Deuces ( talk) 04:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
You may believe that stating in the article that Chavez is an insane dictator who supports terrorism is neutral, but it seems one-sided to me. The Four Deuces ( talk) 20:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Other governments, including the Venezuelan government, are less hostile towards the FARC-EP. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez publicly rejected their classification as "terrorists" in January 2008, considering them to be "real armies", and called on the Colombian and other governments to recognize the guerrillas as a “belligerent force”, arguing that this would then oblige them to renounce kidnappings and terror acts, and respect the Geneva Conventions.
{{ Chatterbox}}
Brinkley, Joel (25 February 2010). "Venezuela on verge of collapse, thanks to Hugo Chavez". The Sacramento Bee. McClatchy-Tribune News Service. Retrieved 25 February 2010.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month=
and |coauthors=
(
help)