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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 |
The recent developments in his health need to be addressed a bit more thorughly, namely: - Supreme court ruled that inauguration of a sitting president can be postponed, and vice-president Maduro called it "a formality", not the court. The court also didn't rule that the inauguration can be bypassed, but that it can be postponed. We could also add that some constitutional experts disagreed ( http://www.eluniversal.com/nacional-y-politica/121220/venezuelan-experts-president-chavez-must-take-office-next-january-10) - the two signatures Maduro produced were identical in their form (see a nice picture on Venezuela devil blog), which is impossible. There is no evidence Chavez was aware of the signatures, and his hand certainly didn't sign both of them. This should be included. The part about "opposition politicians" should be eliminated, since it's not limited to them. 193.2.253.126 ( talk) 12:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
CNN Chile is reporting Chávez as dead: http://www.cnnchile.com/noticia/2013/02/27/ex-embajador-de-panama-en-la-oea-hugo-chavez-esta-muerto#.US6j6iZ-QfI.twitter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.38.208.72 ( talk) 01:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Heres another claim from today March 5 2013 http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/05/world/americas/venezuela-chavez-main/index.html Check it out.
One and a quarter tonnes is an insignificant amount, not worth mention in the scale of the problem that Misión Mercal seeks to address. Perhaps the editor meant to write 1.25 million metric tonnes? That would signify something.
The other problem with the statement that:
In 2008 the amount of discounted food sold through the network was 1.25 metric tonnes.
is that I couldn't find it in the reference cited. Nor could I find a corroborating quote on the Mission Mercal page.
yoyo ( talk) 16:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The correct number is 1.25 million; it has been corrected. The figure is listed on page 12 of the citation. Redd Foxx 1991 ( talk) 00:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The vice president has just announced it. Reports are pending... — Statυs ( talk, contribs) 22:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Would somebody update the succession boxes? I've made 7 attempts & got edit-conflicted each time. GoodDay ( talk) 22:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Chávez has "died" about a dozen times over the past 60 days. I would wait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.38.210.150 ( talk) 22:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
CONFIRMED in numerous reliable sources in the last couple of minutes. Safiel ( talk) 22:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Would somebody make the updates to the infobox? I've made 12 attempts, but was edit-conflicted each time. PS: This article need semi-protection. GoodDay ( talk) 22:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
(1) Venezuela's crime rate does not serve in any way to inform people about Hugo Chavez's death. Please remove that from the Death section. (2) Where on earth are people getting the idea that Maduro has actually succeeded as President? The constitution prescribes that the the National Assembly President (Diosdado Cabello) shall be interim president on the President's unavailability. Maduro will become President if, as Chavez recommended, he is elected in upcoming vacancy elections. 50.136.204.189 ( talk) 22:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
In table of contents: "Presidency: 1999-present" should read "...1999-2013(death)" 198.144.192.45 ( talk) 22:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)
" Under his socialist rule, inflation had soared, and the Venezuelan murder rate had quadrupled,[389] reaching one of the highest in the world.[388]"
Why is the above sentence in this subsection? If one wants to criticize Chavez, it should be under the criticism section of his political activities. Not bizarrely inserted here. Druep ( talk) 23:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Given the media are unanimous in saying they dont know what type of cancer Chavez has it is unacceptable for us to use shoddy references to claim he has cancer of the colon, I have removed these, citing our biography of living persons policy, WP:BLP. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
We can never tell if any ruler will complete their mandate, Chavez may be at greater risk of death but every human being is at risk every day. Important that we frame things not to be a crystal ball. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, this is wrong: "On 30 June 2011, Chávez stated that he was recovering from a 10 June operation to remove an abscessed tumor with cancerous cells.[4] He required a second operation in December 2012.[5]" He had two surgeries in june and another in april, this was his fourth related surgery. We can use the same source, it says as much. 89.143.43.7 ( talk) 12:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The article still states that it is unknown if Chavez will return to Venezuela by January 10. Ten days later, it is pretty clear that he did not. The article should be updated (I cannot edit it, or I would fix it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.126.79 ( talk) 03:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
According new information from Cuba, Chávez will be release from hospital at 5 February.-- 89.176.61.66 ( talk) 23:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I concur that venezuelanalysis.com is trash and has several aggressive authors who have successfully embedded 10 links, drastically boosting their blog's SEO. I am ashamed to see it and wish an established editor would take it on ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.50.93 ( talk) 19:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
hi i am a regular user of Wikipedia and on his death in the article it cites fox news as one of the sources and in Universities the UK unis anyway we see things like the sun, NOTW, Daily Mail and Fox News above all as unreliable sources and i think it should be changed to a more reliable source. Thank you. P.S. sorry about the bad grammer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.136.13 ( talk) 23:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Maduro just went on national television and claimed that the US planted cancer inside Chavez (translated). (waits for Venezuelaanalysis.com to reguritate about "CIA" planting cancer and the plight of the socialist revolution, then suddenly random author places link back into wikipedia and fights off any edits citing that URL as a valid source) ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.50.93 ( talk) 01:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
i see what you mean.and i thought the page cannot be changed by unregistered authors and didn't Manduro say poisoned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.136.16 ( talk) 22:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Who assumes the presidential powers & duties, until the special presidential election? GoodDay ( talk) 22:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no source that states that Nicolas Maduro is the acting President, but the constitution states that if the president didn't started his term (Chávez didn't swore before leaving to cuba so he didn't start his next term) the President of the National assembly (Diosdado Cabello) would be the acting President, We already have a discussion at Diosdado Cabello. MrGcCc ( talk) 01:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
What does it matter for Venezuela whether the one party-member of Chávez is president ad interim for 30 days, or the other? Shouldn't we recognize this as a political game? What bothers me, is that on the wikipedia page on Chávez, the above discussion is not translated, and that the text that has been placed is in fact not correct. Now it reads: "speaker [sic] of the National Assembly, (..), should assume the interim presidency if a president cannot be sworn in". Now, the constitution says nothing about what if the president cannot be sworn in. It only says (Artículo 233) who is to replace the president in case of permanent absence in the following 3 situations: before the president has assumed office (which according to Artículo 231 happens on Jan 10th), in the first 4 years of office, or in the final 2 years of office. Source: "Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela" of 1999, that can be downloaded here: http://www.cgr.gob.ve/contenido.php?Cod=048 The wiki-page, IMHO, should be more objective, and should explain that the constitution does not prescribe what should be done in the current situation. Several arguments can be forwarded for several solutions, but no clear-cut answer can be given. And again, realize what this is about: not clear-cut answer can be given to the question who is to be the interim for the next 30 days. A political game is going on, and the reader of the wiki-page should get information that allows him or her to conclude that, instead of the imprecise wording of one out of 2 subjective versions (without mentioning the other). Martijnijzereef ( talk) 03:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
It hasn't been confirmed by any of the powers in the country that Diosdado Cabello asumed the presidency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlosgaio20 ( talk • contribs) 01:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Despite (or because of) it's massive size the lead is one of the most obviously POV I've read around these parts. The article's so big I only picked out a few sections but the pro-Chavez sentiment is consistent and deeply embedded. Just an observation. 24.212.137.195 ( talk) 04:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The two citations provided for the alleged "wandering jews" remark seem unreliable. The first source cites two other sources, including this page, a poorly punctuated, unsourced, and one sentence long article with no named author, and the other links back to the second source used by the wikipedia article. This other source also cites nothing and is anonymously written. If anyone can find a reliable source for this, it should replace the two non peer-reviewed, non-cited, anonymous sources. Otherwise, this should be scrapped as baseless slander.
Regards. Polyglotism ( talk) 01:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism at Tel Aviv University is a reliable source. Any other questions? Mocctur ( talk) 02:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Unless the Stephen Roth Institute is doing original reporting here, this is an alleged direct quote which would require a direct source. I don't doubt whoever authored this was acting in good faith, but quotes are often erroneously attributed to people even in academic contexts. The anonymous article posted on the Stephen Roth Institute's website cites nothing to support this and I can find absolutely no record of this comment made in news sources. I did not mean to imply that Tel Aviv University is not a legitimate academic source, but since the source simply alleges this quote without providing any evidence. Reliable as an institution, sure. Suitable evidence for this quote, absolutely not.
Polyglotism ( talk) 02:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
You are proposing that 'antisemitism.org' is a source for an alleged anti-semetic quote? Did Hugo Chavez make the statement in question in an interview with antisemitism.org? I would assume not. I honestly have no opinion on Hugo Chavez, nor any knowledge of whether the quote is legitimate, but to include it there needs to be a DIRECT SOURCE cited where the statement was made. As far as I can see, nothing provided yet documents who the statement was made to. Phonograffiti ( talk) 09:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
This whole section appears tendentious at best. All of the "citations" are links to links that make broad and unverifiable claims. There are two "citations" of the "wandering jews" allegation, but both lead to exactly the same source which, though clearly politically biased against Chavez, itself heavily qualifies the term.
The other quote at the beginning of the section ... anti-semitic? Only if you rewrite scripture and history to make an extremely prejudicial reading of it. It was the *Romans* who crucified Jesus, and it is also the only reading that makes any sense when you combine it with the comments about Bolivar. He's talking about colonialism and imperialism and how they benefit a small class of the rich in our societies. In it he's refering to the Roman occupiers, not the Jews. Ecadre ( talk) 10:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll admit to not being familiar with all of wikipedia's guidelines on this sort of thing. However, in academia a direct quote would never be accepted from a source like this, especially given the seeming lack of other sources for this supposed quote. Direct quotes must be absolutely verifiable. If they come from a secondary source ought to cite a primary source to be considered credible. Forgive my wikipedia ignorance, but is there a way to get an administrator or something in on this to clarify this issue?
Parenthetically, I find it highly improbable that a quote like this that would certainly cause immense controversy would not have primary sources available if it were accurate. Certainly any head of state, but especially a controversial one like Chávez would've received quite thorough scrutiny from the media over this. Is it really believable that something like this would be accurate and at the same time lack primary sources?
Polyglotism ( talk) 19:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
After reviewing wikipedia's policies on sources, two things seem particularly relevant to me regarding this matter. "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;″ This can reasonably be considered important, and multiple mainstream sources are not present here. It states clearly that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Unless this criteria can be met, this should be removed.
Polyglotism ( talk) 06:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I looked at this article because I wanted to see if and how Chavez gets smeared, and I must say that I was surprised that the slander would be so crude. Given how much the Western press despised Chavez, I think one can safely say that if there were any basis to these accusations, the mainstream press would have picked them up, which it has evidently not done. Therefore, this section should be removed immediately. That also seems to be the prevailing view in this talk section. – Herzen ( talk) 19:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Upon further reading, a great deal of this section appears problematic to me. The extreme accusation of kidnapping Jewish children in Venezuela is unambiguously an exceptional claim. It cites only one source (in a case where clearly multiple are needed) which cites one Venezuelan Jewish woman who made this claim with seemingly no journalistic credentials or presence on the internet of any kind outside of this article, and absolutely no evidence is provided. If anecdotes can be used as sources, would it be acceptable to then follow this tidbit with "However, others have claimed that Chávez gave free ice cream to all Jewish children on alternating Tuesdays" after clawing through the internet until one random Venezuelan individual's anecdote could be found alleging this?
Polyglotism ( talk) 02:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
It may be difficult to find a reliable source, but one of the quotes namely "some minorities, the descendants of the same ones who crucified Christ, the descendants of the same ones who threw out [South American liberator Simon] Bolivar from here and also crucified him in a way in Santa Marta, over there..." evidently came from a Christmas eve speech sometime around 2006. If it was a public speech a little further investigating might turn it up. According to this article [6] the "wandering jew" thing came from a 2004 speech. Chhe ( talk) 04:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
There are people saying he had a personal net worth of about 2 billion dollars when he died? If true, probably worth putting in the article. If not, may be worth debunking/putting a correct figure. But I don't know if it's true - citation challenge! Abe g92 contribs 03:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Glenn Beck, Andrew Schlafly, Silvio Berlusconi etc..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.84.72 ( talk) 20:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Those are not reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.84.72 ( talk) 21:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Here are a few reports:
The second one cites "Criminal Justice International Associates" as its source. Edgeweyes ( talk) 21:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Isn't the Ornella quote a bit out of place? In the paragraph, it is given alone, with no context, analysis or comparison (and thus, very close on using it to promote the POV of that quote). And to say that Chavez sacrificed him for his country can only an inapropiate figure of speaking: he died of natural causes, not during a military conflict or something like that.
As for the wild theory of the cancer poisoning, shouldn't we detail the absurd nonsense of that claim? Cancer is not an illness caused by external agents like virus, the idea of cancer poisoning is nonsense, and just because Maduro is a political figure he does not get an exception from WP:FRINGE Cambalachero ( talk) 13:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
— rybec 23:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Usage of "whilst" instead of "while" should be limited to articles of British focus. I'm requesting that the occurences in the article be changed to "while". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.115.184 ( talk) 01:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear Wikipedia.
I appreciate your help for many years,however I was reading an article about Hugo Chavez to explain my students a little better the situation in Venezuela with some important dates and events about his life.
I'm colombian,33yrs old and a elementary school teacher. I found this error in the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Chávez
...."FARC's targets have included Chavez's enemy Ingrid Betancourt who was kidnapped by the rebel group. She had been a presidential candidate in Venezuela running against Hugo Chavez. She was taken in midair in 2002 and released by Colombian forces in 2008....."
1. Ingrid Betancurt was a Colombian Presidential Candidate in 2002,she was a hostage with her campain manager Clara Lopez,all this under Presidential period of Andres Pastrana and after failed negotiations with the rebel group. Our government stopped to provide protection and advised Lopez and Betancourt about to do not go to the colombian jungle to interview with the farc without military company but the two of them refused,all the information in this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Íngrid_Betancourt
Again,I hope my small contribution may help the wonderful job of Wikipedia,you guys have done a lot for all of us.
186.154.37.60 ( talk) 18:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. I have taken care of it.
Polyglotism (
talk)
18:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not wikipedia custom for it to stay up more than a few days. Lycurgus ( talk) 16:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
That must be the fifth time I've seen the main picture change on this article in the past 24 hours. Bit excessive really? 217.41.79.214 ( talk) 18:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree. I mean if you want a picture that's fine, but just choose one. - User:Dpm12
Can we settle upon the current one: (File:Hugo Chávez (02-04-2010).jpg)? Of the three, it is the latest and least posed. – Herzen ( talk) 07:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
People still keep on changing the photo.
Since the three photos initially suggested, another one has emerged, and I prefer it. It seems to show Chávez in his "natural habitat". I have just edited the article to use this photo. This photo is the only one of the five being considered which has him dressed in red. :-) – Herzen ( talk) 06:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Why is this photo debate leading to a freeze on the page? Heavy handed.... This photo debate seems insubstantial to me. Anyway, since there was removal of the line that Chavez called Bush a donkey, I wanted to comment that removing text should be for removing incorrect infromation, if you dont like a source, then find a better source, it is not your prerogative to remove correct information simply because it is inadequately sourced. Here is a video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY8xFiPqMGk of Chavez saying it.... As for the photo, why does it even matter? Ottawakismet ( talk) 13:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Here is one more photo that has been used in this article recently. It seems to be a shot of the same event as the photo above. I prefer the photo above: nothing like a waving hand to represent populism, which Chávez was certainly an example of. – Herzen ( talk) 07:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I've looked over other-language Wikipedias to see what photo they use. Most seem to use the third photo from 2010 at the top, with Chávez behind a computer monitor. Israeli Wikipedia uses a particularly unflattering mug shot of him. Dutch Wikipedia uses the close shot of him in the red suit, the photo directly above. Chinese Wikipedia uses the photo I prefer, with him in the red suit waving his hand. – Herzen ( talk) 07:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Edits on the article by non-admins are now frozen because of the constant picture changes. I am happy with the current photo, which is the 2006 one. Can we just agree to leave it at that, so that the article can be edited in other respects? This has gotten very silly. – Herzen ( talk) 05:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
German Wikipedia uses this photo, and Spanish Wikipedia marks the German Wikipedia article on Chavez as outstandingly good. – Herzen ( talk) 06:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The introduction is more than four paragraphs long. It needs condensation; some paragraphs (or sentences) must be moved into body article. -- George Ho ( talk) 18:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It is the overwhelming consensus among the unbiased media that Chavez's death was a result of US operations. Indeed, there is incontrovertible evidence. This fact should be acknowledged in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.82.250 ( talk) 21:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Move along, folks. Nothing to see here. Unless there's a reliable source for this -- and, when I say 'reliable source,' I mean according to Wiki standards, not according to what some anonymous conspiracy theorist decides is a reliable source -- there's nothing to debate and nothing to add to the article. JoelWhy?( talk) 19:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Seach in the text for the bit about "seven years" in respect of term limits. What that (and nearby material) says about Chavez's attempts to serve for longer than (was) legally permited was not clear to me. What WERE the rules, when and how did he get them changed, so he could serve longer?
Tkbwik ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
First of all, if Hugo Chávez had anything was a political ideology, not a political philosophy. Otherwise, where are his books on political theory?
Second, his ideology like previous South American leaders such as Juan Domingo Perón was a mixture, often incoherent, of different tendencies. Chávez saw himself to be a follower of Simón Bolívar, a military leader of the 19th century, mainly influenced by political liberalism. Unlike Bolívar however he did respect some basic principles of liberal democracy like open elections to elect the country’s chief of government. Then he also claimed influence of socialism, foremost the Latin American version of it, and some form of democratic socialism labeled as 21st century socialism. And last but not least he pursued above all a nationalist ideology. In his speeches, thought and practice the fatherland (patria) was way more important than citizen participation or the class interests of the proletariat.-- Rivet138 ( talk) 20:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
During his time as president, crime and homicide rate substantially increased with over 200,000 murdered. http://fusion.net/leadership/story/venezuela-violent-iraq-365361 http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2010/08/crime_venezuela
as this was replaced twice without any attempt at discussion by User:Bobrayner with the comment whitewashing and without any attempt by BobRaynor to discuss, I have removed it again from the header of the article - perhaps sits better in an article about the government rather that a personal biography, or as a minimum in a section about crime during his presidency, the point is, the addition asserts blame on the subject of the article without effort to expand or discuss the claim.
During his time as president, oil prices tripled/aids cases trebled/rape increased/religious beleivers decreases, or anything you want to slant the article to your personal bias. Mosfetfaser ( talk) 20:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Category:Venezuelan_dissidents
I don't think he could be included in such a group and I removed it, a serch on tinternet didn't return results of him being call such, if anyone knows more ? I will tell the user there is discusson here. Mosfetfaser ( talk) 05:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
During his time as president, Venezuela developed serious economic problems, democracy was undermined, and the crime and homicide rate substantially increased with over 200,000 murdered.
http://fusion.net/leadership/story/venezuela-violent-iraq-365361 http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2010/08/crime_venezuela http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2013/03/venezuela-after-ch%C3%A1vez
very biases addition - during Chavez time Venezuela economy greatly improved. etal - biases opinion in the lede to weak sources - nothing to support reasons related to Chaves and murder increase - Mosfetfaser ( talk) 23:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I believe that the current revision of the literacy section gives undue weight to criticism of one particular claim made by the government regarding the number of Venezuelans who learned to read thanks to the government's education programs. This criticism--by "Francisco Rodríguez of Wesleyan University in Connecticut and Daniel Ortega of IESA"-- has itself been subjected to critique, as I have attempted to show by including the reference to the CEPR document by Mark Weisbrot and David Rosnick. However, it is my preference that, rather than summarize the back-and-forth between the different sides of this debate, which would involve in-depth discussion of the authors' respect views regarding the most appropriate datasets..., and the proper methods of statistical analysis..., for assessing literary rates in Venezuela, we simply provide the (government's) claim--about teaching 1.5 million Venezuelans to read--and then mention that this claim has become the subject of scholarly debate, including references to all the relevant sources. After all, this article is about Hugo Chavez, not about the education programs enacted by his government, and not at all a place to arbitrate between competing evaluations of their success. (In my view, the 'literacy' section, and even the 'policy overview' section itself could use a trim.)-- Riothero ( talk) 02:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
The graph on corruption over time has a couple of issues - the y-axis goes from 0.0 to 4.6, but the title indicates that the minimum possible rating would be 1.0. The maximum of the graph is 4.6, the highest rating, but this gives the impression that corruption is percieved to be at the most it could be, when it's not. 148.88.244.126 ( talk) 23:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
There is already a section on the "History of Jews in Venezuela" article that delves into accusations of anti-semitism. I urge you to read it. It addresses a number of comments by Chavez which incited controversy (usually at the interntional level). In nearly every case, the initial uproar was followed by a closer examination of the comments in their original context, and it was found (i.e. by the Venezuelan Jewish community) that the original meaning had been distorted/misunderstood. That is why it would be a mistake to introduce in this article out-of-context quotes and misguided interpretations to which they lent themselves without alluding to the fact that these accusations were based on misreadings, etc. -- Riothero ( talk) 12:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I will change the picture of his picture to a more suitable, professional looking picture. He may not be smiling but it is more professional and comparative to current and formal heads of state.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 22:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I've raised this many times over the years here, and made no progress. The fastest way to begin addressing the POV in this article is to cut it in half:
The bloat here is the result of shoving every off-topic mention possible of sources that puff up Chavez, resulting in a hagiography. By cutting the off-topic bloat, the remaining POV will be easier to address. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, new to posting, so I hope I'm following protocol. Not sure I understand the "Assumed Office 26 July 2014" in the "Eternal President of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela" section of the top-right info block since the date is after his death. I don't know if the date is a typo (seems likely) or whether it should be added that the assumption of office was posthumous (seems less likely). Cpalsgrove ( talk) 03:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)cpalsgrove
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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 |
The recent developments in his health need to be addressed a bit more thorughly, namely: - Supreme court ruled that inauguration of a sitting president can be postponed, and vice-president Maduro called it "a formality", not the court. The court also didn't rule that the inauguration can be bypassed, but that it can be postponed. We could also add that some constitutional experts disagreed ( http://www.eluniversal.com/nacional-y-politica/121220/venezuelan-experts-president-chavez-must-take-office-next-january-10) - the two signatures Maduro produced were identical in their form (see a nice picture on Venezuela devil blog), which is impossible. There is no evidence Chavez was aware of the signatures, and his hand certainly didn't sign both of them. This should be included. The part about "opposition politicians" should be eliminated, since it's not limited to them. 193.2.253.126 ( talk) 12:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
CNN Chile is reporting Chávez as dead: http://www.cnnchile.com/noticia/2013/02/27/ex-embajador-de-panama-en-la-oea-hugo-chavez-esta-muerto#.US6j6iZ-QfI.twitter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.38.208.72 ( talk) 01:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Heres another claim from today March 5 2013 http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/05/world/americas/venezuela-chavez-main/index.html Check it out.
One and a quarter tonnes is an insignificant amount, not worth mention in the scale of the problem that Misión Mercal seeks to address. Perhaps the editor meant to write 1.25 million metric tonnes? That would signify something.
The other problem with the statement that:
In 2008 the amount of discounted food sold through the network was 1.25 metric tonnes.
is that I couldn't find it in the reference cited. Nor could I find a corroborating quote on the Mission Mercal page.
yoyo ( talk) 16:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The correct number is 1.25 million; it has been corrected. The figure is listed on page 12 of the citation. Redd Foxx 1991 ( talk) 00:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The vice president has just announced it. Reports are pending... — Statυs ( talk, contribs) 22:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Would somebody update the succession boxes? I've made 7 attempts & got edit-conflicted each time. GoodDay ( talk) 22:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Chávez has "died" about a dozen times over the past 60 days. I would wait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.38.210.150 ( talk) 22:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
CONFIRMED in numerous reliable sources in the last couple of minutes. Safiel ( talk) 22:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Would somebody make the updates to the infobox? I've made 12 attempts, but was edit-conflicted each time. PS: This article need semi-protection. GoodDay ( talk) 22:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
(1) Venezuela's crime rate does not serve in any way to inform people about Hugo Chavez's death. Please remove that from the Death section. (2) Where on earth are people getting the idea that Maduro has actually succeeded as President? The constitution prescribes that the the National Assembly President (Diosdado Cabello) shall be interim president on the President's unavailability. Maduro will become President if, as Chavez recommended, he is elected in upcoming vacancy elections. 50.136.204.189 ( talk) 22:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
In table of contents: "Presidency: 1999-present" should read "...1999-2013(death)" 198.144.192.45 ( talk) 22:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)
" Under his socialist rule, inflation had soared, and the Venezuelan murder rate had quadrupled,[389] reaching one of the highest in the world.[388]"
Why is the above sentence in this subsection? If one wants to criticize Chavez, it should be under the criticism section of his political activities. Not bizarrely inserted here. Druep ( talk) 23:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Given the media are unanimous in saying they dont know what type of cancer Chavez has it is unacceptable for us to use shoddy references to claim he has cancer of the colon, I have removed these, citing our biography of living persons policy, WP:BLP. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
We can never tell if any ruler will complete their mandate, Chavez may be at greater risk of death but every human being is at risk every day. Important that we frame things not to be a crystal ball. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, this is wrong: "On 30 June 2011, Chávez stated that he was recovering from a 10 June operation to remove an abscessed tumor with cancerous cells.[4] He required a second operation in December 2012.[5]" He had two surgeries in june and another in april, this was his fourth related surgery. We can use the same source, it says as much. 89.143.43.7 ( talk) 12:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The article still states that it is unknown if Chavez will return to Venezuela by January 10. Ten days later, it is pretty clear that he did not. The article should be updated (I cannot edit it, or I would fix it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.126.79 ( talk) 03:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
According new information from Cuba, Chávez will be release from hospital at 5 February.-- 89.176.61.66 ( talk) 23:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I concur that venezuelanalysis.com is trash and has several aggressive authors who have successfully embedded 10 links, drastically boosting their blog's SEO. I am ashamed to see it and wish an established editor would take it on ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.50.93 ( talk) 19:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
hi i am a regular user of Wikipedia and on his death in the article it cites fox news as one of the sources and in Universities the UK unis anyway we see things like the sun, NOTW, Daily Mail and Fox News above all as unreliable sources and i think it should be changed to a more reliable source. Thank you. P.S. sorry about the bad grammer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.136.13 ( talk) 23:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Maduro just went on national television and claimed that the US planted cancer inside Chavez (translated). (waits for Venezuelaanalysis.com to reguritate about "CIA" planting cancer and the plight of the socialist revolution, then suddenly random author places link back into wikipedia and fights off any edits citing that URL as a valid source) ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.50.93 ( talk) 01:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
i see what you mean.and i thought the page cannot be changed by unregistered authors and didn't Manduro say poisoned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.136.16 ( talk) 22:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Who assumes the presidential powers & duties, until the special presidential election? GoodDay ( talk) 22:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no source that states that Nicolas Maduro is the acting President, but the constitution states that if the president didn't started his term (Chávez didn't swore before leaving to cuba so he didn't start his next term) the President of the National assembly (Diosdado Cabello) would be the acting President, We already have a discussion at Diosdado Cabello. MrGcCc ( talk) 01:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
What does it matter for Venezuela whether the one party-member of Chávez is president ad interim for 30 days, or the other? Shouldn't we recognize this as a political game? What bothers me, is that on the wikipedia page on Chávez, the above discussion is not translated, and that the text that has been placed is in fact not correct. Now it reads: "speaker [sic] of the National Assembly, (..), should assume the interim presidency if a president cannot be sworn in". Now, the constitution says nothing about what if the president cannot be sworn in. It only says (Artículo 233) who is to replace the president in case of permanent absence in the following 3 situations: before the president has assumed office (which according to Artículo 231 happens on Jan 10th), in the first 4 years of office, or in the final 2 years of office. Source: "Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela" of 1999, that can be downloaded here: http://www.cgr.gob.ve/contenido.php?Cod=048 The wiki-page, IMHO, should be more objective, and should explain that the constitution does not prescribe what should be done in the current situation. Several arguments can be forwarded for several solutions, but no clear-cut answer can be given. And again, realize what this is about: not clear-cut answer can be given to the question who is to be the interim for the next 30 days. A political game is going on, and the reader of the wiki-page should get information that allows him or her to conclude that, instead of the imprecise wording of one out of 2 subjective versions (without mentioning the other). Martijnijzereef ( talk) 03:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
It hasn't been confirmed by any of the powers in the country that Diosdado Cabello asumed the presidency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlosgaio20 ( talk • contribs) 01:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Despite (or because of) it's massive size the lead is one of the most obviously POV I've read around these parts. The article's so big I only picked out a few sections but the pro-Chavez sentiment is consistent and deeply embedded. Just an observation. 24.212.137.195 ( talk) 04:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The two citations provided for the alleged "wandering jews" remark seem unreliable. The first source cites two other sources, including this page, a poorly punctuated, unsourced, and one sentence long article with no named author, and the other links back to the second source used by the wikipedia article. This other source also cites nothing and is anonymously written. If anyone can find a reliable source for this, it should replace the two non peer-reviewed, non-cited, anonymous sources. Otherwise, this should be scrapped as baseless slander.
Regards. Polyglotism ( talk) 01:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism at Tel Aviv University is a reliable source. Any other questions? Mocctur ( talk) 02:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Unless the Stephen Roth Institute is doing original reporting here, this is an alleged direct quote which would require a direct source. I don't doubt whoever authored this was acting in good faith, but quotes are often erroneously attributed to people even in academic contexts. The anonymous article posted on the Stephen Roth Institute's website cites nothing to support this and I can find absolutely no record of this comment made in news sources. I did not mean to imply that Tel Aviv University is not a legitimate academic source, but since the source simply alleges this quote without providing any evidence. Reliable as an institution, sure. Suitable evidence for this quote, absolutely not.
Polyglotism ( talk) 02:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
You are proposing that 'antisemitism.org' is a source for an alleged anti-semetic quote? Did Hugo Chavez make the statement in question in an interview with antisemitism.org? I would assume not. I honestly have no opinion on Hugo Chavez, nor any knowledge of whether the quote is legitimate, but to include it there needs to be a DIRECT SOURCE cited where the statement was made. As far as I can see, nothing provided yet documents who the statement was made to. Phonograffiti ( talk) 09:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
This whole section appears tendentious at best. All of the "citations" are links to links that make broad and unverifiable claims. There are two "citations" of the "wandering jews" allegation, but both lead to exactly the same source which, though clearly politically biased against Chavez, itself heavily qualifies the term.
The other quote at the beginning of the section ... anti-semitic? Only if you rewrite scripture and history to make an extremely prejudicial reading of it. It was the *Romans* who crucified Jesus, and it is also the only reading that makes any sense when you combine it with the comments about Bolivar. He's talking about colonialism and imperialism and how they benefit a small class of the rich in our societies. In it he's refering to the Roman occupiers, not the Jews. Ecadre ( talk) 10:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll admit to not being familiar with all of wikipedia's guidelines on this sort of thing. However, in academia a direct quote would never be accepted from a source like this, especially given the seeming lack of other sources for this supposed quote. Direct quotes must be absolutely verifiable. If they come from a secondary source ought to cite a primary source to be considered credible. Forgive my wikipedia ignorance, but is there a way to get an administrator or something in on this to clarify this issue?
Parenthetically, I find it highly improbable that a quote like this that would certainly cause immense controversy would not have primary sources available if it were accurate. Certainly any head of state, but especially a controversial one like Chávez would've received quite thorough scrutiny from the media over this. Is it really believable that something like this would be accurate and at the same time lack primary sources?
Polyglotism ( talk) 19:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
After reviewing wikipedia's policies on sources, two things seem particularly relevant to me regarding this matter. "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;″ This can reasonably be considered important, and multiple mainstream sources are not present here. It states clearly that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Unless this criteria can be met, this should be removed.
Polyglotism ( talk) 06:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I looked at this article because I wanted to see if and how Chavez gets smeared, and I must say that I was surprised that the slander would be so crude. Given how much the Western press despised Chavez, I think one can safely say that if there were any basis to these accusations, the mainstream press would have picked them up, which it has evidently not done. Therefore, this section should be removed immediately. That also seems to be the prevailing view in this talk section. – Herzen ( talk) 19:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Upon further reading, a great deal of this section appears problematic to me. The extreme accusation of kidnapping Jewish children in Venezuela is unambiguously an exceptional claim. It cites only one source (in a case where clearly multiple are needed) which cites one Venezuelan Jewish woman who made this claim with seemingly no journalistic credentials or presence on the internet of any kind outside of this article, and absolutely no evidence is provided. If anecdotes can be used as sources, would it be acceptable to then follow this tidbit with "However, others have claimed that Chávez gave free ice cream to all Jewish children on alternating Tuesdays" after clawing through the internet until one random Venezuelan individual's anecdote could be found alleging this?
Polyglotism ( talk) 02:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
It may be difficult to find a reliable source, but one of the quotes namely "some minorities, the descendants of the same ones who crucified Christ, the descendants of the same ones who threw out [South American liberator Simon] Bolivar from here and also crucified him in a way in Santa Marta, over there..." evidently came from a Christmas eve speech sometime around 2006. If it was a public speech a little further investigating might turn it up. According to this article [6] the "wandering jew" thing came from a 2004 speech. Chhe ( talk) 04:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
There are people saying he had a personal net worth of about 2 billion dollars when he died? If true, probably worth putting in the article. If not, may be worth debunking/putting a correct figure. But I don't know if it's true - citation challenge! Abe g92 contribs 03:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Glenn Beck, Andrew Schlafly, Silvio Berlusconi etc..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.84.72 ( talk) 20:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Those are not reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.84.72 ( talk) 21:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Here are a few reports:
The second one cites "Criminal Justice International Associates" as its source. Edgeweyes ( talk) 21:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Isn't the Ornella quote a bit out of place? In the paragraph, it is given alone, with no context, analysis or comparison (and thus, very close on using it to promote the POV of that quote). And to say that Chavez sacrificed him for his country can only an inapropiate figure of speaking: he died of natural causes, not during a military conflict or something like that.
As for the wild theory of the cancer poisoning, shouldn't we detail the absurd nonsense of that claim? Cancer is not an illness caused by external agents like virus, the idea of cancer poisoning is nonsense, and just because Maduro is a political figure he does not get an exception from WP:FRINGE Cambalachero ( talk) 13:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
— rybec 23:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Usage of "whilst" instead of "while" should be limited to articles of British focus. I'm requesting that the occurences in the article be changed to "while". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.115.184 ( talk) 01:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear Wikipedia.
I appreciate your help for many years,however I was reading an article about Hugo Chavez to explain my students a little better the situation in Venezuela with some important dates and events about his life.
I'm colombian,33yrs old and a elementary school teacher. I found this error in the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Chávez
...."FARC's targets have included Chavez's enemy Ingrid Betancourt who was kidnapped by the rebel group. She had been a presidential candidate in Venezuela running against Hugo Chavez. She was taken in midair in 2002 and released by Colombian forces in 2008....."
1. Ingrid Betancurt was a Colombian Presidential Candidate in 2002,she was a hostage with her campain manager Clara Lopez,all this under Presidential period of Andres Pastrana and after failed negotiations with the rebel group. Our government stopped to provide protection and advised Lopez and Betancourt about to do not go to the colombian jungle to interview with the farc without military company but the two of them refused,all the information in this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Íngrid_Betancourt
Again,I hope my small contribution may help the wonderful job of Wikipedia,you guys have done a lot for all of us.
186.154.37.60 ( talk) 18:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. I have taken care of it.
Polyglotism (
talk)
18:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not wikipedia custom for it to stay up more than a few days. Lycurgus ( talk) 16:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
That must be the fifth time I've seen the main picture change on this article in the past 24 hours. Bit excessive really? 217.41.79.214 ( talk) 18:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree. I mean if you want a picture that's fine, but just choose one. - User:Dpm12
Can we settle upon the current one: (File:Hugo Chávez (02-04-2010).jpg)? Of the three, it is the latest and least posed. – Herzen ( talk) 07:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
People still keep on changing the photo.
Since the three photos initially suggested, another one has emerged, and I prefer it. It seems to show Chávez in his "natural habitat". I have just edited the article to use this photo. This photo is the only one of the five being considered which has him dressed in red. :-) – Herzen ( talk) 06:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Why is this photo debate leading to a freeze on the page? Heavy handed.... This photo debate seems insubstantial to me. Anyway, since there was removal of the line that Chavez called Bush a donkey, I wanted to comment that removing text should be for removing incorrect infromation, if you dont like a source, then find a better source, it is not your prerogative to remove correct information simply because it is inadequately sourced. Here is a video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY8xFiPqMGk of Chavez saying it.... As for the photo, why does it even matter? Ottawakismet ( talk) 13:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Here is one more photo that has been used in this article recently. It seems to be a shot of the same event as the photo above. I prefer the photo above: nothing like a waving hand to represent populism, which Chávez was certainly an example of. – Herzen ( talk) 07:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I've looked over other-language Wikipedias to see what photo they use. Most seem to use the third photo from 2010 at the top, with Chávez behind a computer monitor. Israeli Wikipedia uses a particularly unflattering mug shot of him. Dutch Wikipedia uses the close shot of him in the red suit, the photo directly above. Chinese Wikipedia uses the photo I prefer, with him in the red suit waving his hand. – Herzen ( talk) 07:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Edits on the article by non-admins are now frozen because of the constant picture changes. I am happy with the current photo, which is the 2006 one. Can we just agree to leave it at that, so that the article can be edited in other respects? This has gotten very silly. – Herzen ( talk) 05:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
German Wikipedia uses this photo, and Spanish Wikipedia marks the German Wikipedia article on Chavez as outstandingly good. – Herzen ( talk) 06:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The introduction is more than four paragraphs long. It needs condensation; some paragraphs (or sentences) must be moved into body article. -- George Ho ( talk) 18:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It is the overwhelming consensus among the unbiased media that Chavez's death was a result of US operations. Indeed, there is incontrovertible evidence. This fact should be acknowledged in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.82.250 ( talk) 21:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Move along, folks. Nothing to see here. Unless there's a reliable source for this -- and, when I say 'reliable source,' I mean according to Wiki standards, not according to what some anonymous conspiracy theorist decides is a reliable source -- there's nothing to debate and nothing to add to the article. JoelWhy?( talk) 19:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Seach in the text for the bit about "seven years" in respect of term limits. What that (and nearby material) says about Chavez's attempts to serve for longer than (was) legally permited was not clear to me. What WERE the rules, when and how did he get them changed, so he could serve longer?
Tkbwik ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
First of all, if Hugo Chávez had anything was a political ideology, not a political philosophy. Otherwise, where are his books on political theory?
Second, his ideology like previous South American leaders such as Juan Domingo Perón was a mixture, often incoherent, of different tendencies. Chávez saw himself to be a follower of Simón Bolívar, a military leader of the 19th century, mainly influenced by political liberalism. Unlike Bolívar however he did respect some basic principles of liberal democracy like open elections to elect the country’s chief of government. Then he also claimed influence of socialism, foremost the Latin American version of it, and some form of democratic socialism labeled as 21st century socialism. And last but not least he pursued above all a nationalist ideology. In his speeches, thought and practice the fatherland (patria) was way more important than citizen participation or the class interests of the proletariat.-- Rivet138 ( talk) 20:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
During his time as president, crime and homicide rate substantially increased with over 200,000 murdered. http://fusion.net/leadership/story/venezuela-violent-iraq-365361 http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2010/08/crime_venezuela
as this was replaced twice without any attempt at discussion by User:Bobrayner with the comment whitewashing and without any attempt by BobRaynor to discuss, I have removed it again from the header of the article - perhaps sits better in an article about the government rather that a personal biography, or as a minimum in a section about crime during his presidency, the point is, the addition asserts blame on the subject of the article without effort to expand or discuss the claim.
During his time as president, oil prices tripled/aids cases trebled/rape increased/religious beleivers decreases, or anything you want to slant the article to your personal bias. Mosfetfaser ( talk) 20:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Category:Venezuelan_dissidents
I don't think he could be included in such a group and I removed it, a serch on tinternet didn't return results of him being call such, if anyone knows more ? I will tell the user there is discusson here. Mosfetfaser ( talk) 05:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
During his time as president, Venezuela developed serious economic problems, democracy was undermined, and the crime and homicide rate substantially increased with over 200,000 murdered.
http://fusion.net/leadership/story/venezuela-violent-iraq-365361 http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2010/08/crime_venezuela http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2013/03/venezuela-after-ch%C3%A1vez
very biases addition - during Chavez time Venezuela economy greatly improved. etal - biases opinion in the lede to weak sources - nothing to support reasons related to Chaves and murder increase - Mosfetfaser ( talk) 23:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I believe that the current revision of the literacy section gives undue weight to criticism of one particular claim made by the government regarding the number of Venezuelans who learned to read thanks to the government's education programs. This criticism--by "Francisco Rodríguez of Wesleyan University in Connecticut and Daniel Ortega of IESA"-- has itself been subjected to critique, as I have attempted to show by including the reference to the CEPR document by Mark Weisbrot and David Rosnick. However, it is my preference that, rather than summarize the back-and-forth between the different sides of this debate, which would involve in-depth discussion of the authors' respect views regarding the most appropriate datasets..., and the proper methods of statistical analysis..., for assessing literary rates in Venezuela, we simply provide the (government's) claim--about teaching 1.5 million Venezuelans to read--and then mention that this claim has become the subject of scholarly debate, including references to all the relevant sources. After all, this article is about Hugo Chavez, not about the education programs enacted by his government, and not at all a place to arbitrate between competing evaluations of their success. (In my view, the 'literacy' section, and even the 'policy overview' section itself could use a trim.)-- Riothero ( talk) 02:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
The graph on corruption over time has a couple of issues - the y-axis goes from 0.0 to 4.6, but the title indicates that the minimum possible rating would be 1.0. The maximum of the graph is 4.6, the highest rating, but this gives the impression that corruption is percieved to be at the most it could be, when it's not. 148.88.244.126 ( talk) 23:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
There is already a section on the "History of Jews in Venezuela" article that delves into accusations of anti-semitism. I urge you to read it. It addresses a number of comments by Chavez which incited controversy (usually at the interntional level). In nearly every case, the initial uproar was followed by a closer examination of the comments in their original context, and it was found (i.e. by the Venezuelan Jewish community) that the original meaning had been distorted/misunderstood. That is why it would be a mistake to introduce in this article out-of-context quotes and misguided interpretations to which they lent themselves without alluding to the fact that these accusations were based on misreadings, etc. -- Riothero ( talk) 12:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I will change the picture of his picture to a more suitable, professional looking picture. He may not be smiling but it is more professional and comparative to current and formal heads of state.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 22:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I've raised this many times over the years here, and made no progress. The fastest way to begin addressing the POV in this article is to cut it in half:
The bloat here is the result of shoving every off-topic mention possible of sources that puff up Chavez, resulting in a hagiography. By cutting the off-topic bloat, the remaining POV will be easier to address. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, new to posting, so I hope I'm following protocol. Not sure I understand the "Assumed Office 26 July 2014" in the "Eternal President of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela" section of the top-right info block since the date is after his death. I don't know if the date is a typo (seems likely) or whether it should be added that the assumption of office was posthumous (seems less likely). Cpalsgrove ( talk) 03:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)cpalsgrove