This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
While Hugo Chavez may have said that he is a trotskyist, his actions and policies don't really resemble trotskyism at all. I think he was probably just using it as another word for Socialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spongesquid ( talk • contribs) 22:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Trotskyism is a form of socialism. I know nothing about it, but just because it is a socialist philosophy doesn't mean that Chavez is a faithful follower of it.-Jared Croft
This sentence is based on an opinion article and therefore cannot be presented as a statement of fact:
Only after polls showed that 60% of Venezuelans opposed the measure did Chavez add incentives such as reducing the workday from eight to six hours and lowering the voting age from 18 to 16. [1]
[1] JRSP 00:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This caudillo crap is beyond shameless.... Chavez is the democratically elected president of Venezuela, the very first sentence of this article shows the article's bias...
Another Economist/CIA backed edit no doubt. -- 24.150.77.3 ( talk) 18:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Well there were several news stories about FBI and CIA systematically editing Wikipedia, and seeing as how this article features so many Economist sources, and we all know what that journal advocates, I assumed this was the approved edit. I'd rather post my outrage here than just edit eithout approval. -- 24.150.77.3 ( talk) 21:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree change it to dictator he is subverting the rights of the ooppsition and stole the last election. 65.96.135.42 ( talk) 20:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Find evidence of a stolen election if you want to make an accusation of that. I saw a landslide in his favor. Also, the opposition dropped out, he did nothing impacting their foolish decision. Claiming that he cheated because he has no opposition is like fighting the fur industry by buying a massive ammount of furs, and then shouting at them for killing more animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.133.20 ( talk) 03:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
So I guess that Hitler winning elections and referendums without opposition makes him a "democratic leader", what about Stalin's opposition, I haven't seen opposing parties in his ballot boxes. The opposition withdrew BECAUSE Chavez is undemocratic, it is foolish to say that he is a democrat just BECAUSE he showed up for an uncontested election. Unfortunately for the international community wining elections (even uncontested) is enough to be called a democrat, nobody cares if the person in question actually governs as a democrat, and alas Wikipedia does the same.... 190.74.70.77 ( talk) 22:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.74.70.77 ( talk) 22:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a note, I would make a change if I could, I think someone here should take care of it.
Personally, I don´t think the declaration "I am a trotskyst" is good enough as to be qualified as a valid reference when Chavez is described as a troskyst properly.
Also, I dont see any special influence of Trotsky in Chavez´s work.
I think, the sentence should be changed from "He is also a trotskyst" to "He is a self-declared trotskyst".-------sabin
Well how much more can he do other than claim to be a Trot, I mean what would you accept as evidence in his actions that he is a Trot? If this is you're logic then every politician in the world really could be called a 'self-declared conservative' or a 'self-declared socialist' because anyone can call into question their beliefs and their application as a leader. Chavez's action are actually alot like Trotskyism, unlike other socialist ideologies Chavez did not think straight after he came to power that the revolution was over, he thinks of it as an ongoing struggle to strength the revolution and build socialism practically in this modern century. 21st Century Socialism and Bolivarianism is also alot like Trotskyism because it rejects the bureaucratic apparatus of the state as the driving force and instead holds a socialism 'from the ground up' grassroots populism to be the way to socialism. Chavez has clearly proven this with his local cooperatives and communes which have free health facilities and cheap food outlets. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
124.187.225.104 (
talk) 08:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
What would be enough? A reference to a socialism specialized third party that states so.
I could claim to be Superman, but that doesnt make me that guy. Nazi means "national socialist" and them claiming to be socialists don´t turn them automatically into so.
The difference here is that most "conservatives" or "socialists" dont claim to be anything, just do their works and thats all. Also, lot of people could relate Chavez´s bureaucritic policies and control over the justice system more to those of Stalin or Fidel Castro.
Therefore, Wikipedia being an accurate information provider, is required to take a "I am also a trostkyst" as it is, a declaration from Chavez himself.
Im not saying he is not a Trotskyst, and that is not what I´m discussing. But there is no valid reference, and without any more deep source, Wikipedia should leave it open for the reader to decide it.------ sabin
Stalin or Fidel Castro? Since when did Stalin or Fidel Castro permit a media to be in existence that actively supported coups and attempts on the leaders life? In most western countries this is not allowed, it is strange in such an autocracy that Hugo Chavez permits (grudingly, admittedly) a media that tried to overthrow him and tries to influence the countries political outcomes. 172.142.197.162 ( talk) 16:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
???? Chavez´s bureaucritic policies and control over the justice system , theres no one talking about his media polices, which by the way even if he permits so, he has demostrated he has the power to override and discard media anytime he wants, wich is not precisely a demostration of free speech.----sabin
Anyone beside me notice that in the Hugo Chavez Election Results table, about a third of the way down the page, the percentages add up to 130 percent of the population? 59% voted no + 41% voted yes + 30% did not vote adds up to 130%
The "voted no" and "voted yes" only take in account those who voted. 157.253.22.14 20:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that there is no outward link to the "Criticism of Hugo Chávez" topic, although there is a link from that topic to this. Is merely linking to criticism considered a breach of NPOV? The tone of this topic edges over into hagiography already, and placing all the criticism in a separate topic with no link to it is highly unusual -- perhaps in itself a breach of NPOV. Gruffbear 02:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see it. Sorry. Gruffbear 02:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Im a bit miffed about the statment 'Some foreign governments, especially the government of the United States, view Chávez as a threat to democracy in the region', I dont have a problem with this as it is sourced, and that this is an excuse that the USA often use to denounce him, however I find it strange that this can be legitimate criticism A: that Chavez is democratically elected and has brought back democratic elections which were not there previously B: 'threat to democracy in Latin America', seriously Im a bit wtf (pardon my language), how can Chavez be a threat to democracy in Latin America when it barely exists outside Venezuela, when the United States has been the main threat to Latin American democratically elected governments (watch 'The war on democracy' despite its title and obviously set opinion, it provides factually udisputable evidence) , and where it does exist it is universally left-wing and therefore universally supported by Chavez. As I say I dont have a problem with saying that the USA claims to oppose Chavez because they view him as a threat to Latin American democracy (although, what democracy? its ruled by the Munroe doctrine) however the sentence quoted shouldnt be placed in the first paragraph, as to me at least it is a logical fallacy, it should be rephrased and put in a criticism section. I do have a pro-Chavez opion I dont deny it, but I believe the points I have made are perfectly logical, and we all have opinions, even those who contst what I have said. 172.143.124.86 20:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I would be in favor of the change you propose. The entire topic seems to have been thoroughly vetted so as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of the leftist Wikipedia reader community; so much so that it reads like a Hugo Chavez puff piece. So why not make the change? It will make this topic even sillier. (At some point, somebody might be tempted to flag this topic as "a work of fiction written in in-universe style," but that's another issue.)
Do topics written like this tend to ruin the cred of the Wikipedia concept? I'm not sure. But in any case, the change you propose can't possibly make this topic worse, so go for it. Gruffbear 17:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh well, it looks like I have a 2-1 consensus (having waited a week) because some editors cant take the project seriosuly, and feel they have to try and be funny......
Also check the sction below (i havent moved it up here yet) where I clarified what my points were and tried to show that Im not just POV spoapboxing. 172.142.232.113 ( talk) 00:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I moved this from the section below, a user replied to my comment (I think) in the wrong section 172.142.197.162 ( talk) 19:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC) :
Idiot! The elections were fixed beyond all proportion. You're just plain wrong. WRONG. grrr. Have you even been to Venezuela? No, probably not. The contention that Chavez is a threat to democracy is correct and substantiated. To leave it out of the article would be biased in favor of this dictator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.66.1 ( talk) 18:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I assume you meant to paste that in the section above, in response to what I wrote, please refrain from referring to me as an idiot, I do not think of myself as an idiot (I have a high IQ anyway...), however maybe I am... (my spelling suggests so =P) but it is not really for you to say so, you are right (admittedly) that I have not been to Venezuela. However, I have studied this topic (in both English and Spanish) and I know for a fact that these elections have been watched closely, and have been deemed free by both the left and the right (except possibly some far-right wing groups, though it would be presumptious to assume that you are a far right winger). I would say Venezuela (from what I gather about it) is pretty fair, considering Chavez's own media is allowed to launch specific and derogotory attacks on him, and tried to initiate a coup against him, and still not being competely smashed after Chavez's return to power..... living in England I can tell you that the media here is not allowed to go out of its way to criticise the government at all, its meant to remain impartial, in fact the BBC was prosecuted for not being impartial, so please dont give me a lecture about liberty of the media. My point was this, to me the statement that 'Chavez is viewed as a threat to democracy in the region ' simply makes no logical sense to me, its not that is unsourced, it just is a logical fallacy, like the sttement 'chairs generally have two legs' for example, I would have no problem with the statement 'Some hold the opinon that Chavez does not support democracy' . Specifically in the region makes no sense, the source used (BBC) only vaguely points to criticism and itself does not elaborate, I view the BBC a reputable as far as it goes, but it hardly gives any reason for its statment. In the region (by this I assume South America) the only democratically elected governments currently are left-wing, please name for me a democratically elected right-wing government in this region of South America, and ill change my opinion. By democratically elected I dont mean supported by America and its Munroe doctrine, I mean actually democratic with free elections. If you cannot give me an example I assume I am correct in believing the statement is a logical fallacy, and ill change it to what I proposed (unless someone can come up with something better). As far as I know Chavez is not a threat to any left-wing democracies in South America, and since the only demorcacies there are left-wing (as far as I know) he is not anti-democracy in the region. Also my question that: If Chavez is anti-democratic why did he liberalise Venezuela and its media? still has not been adressed. 172.142.232.113 ( talk) 00:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Im giving you guys a day to come up with the awnsers to my questions, If there arent any awnsers Ill assume I am correct in believing the statement in question was a logical fallacy, I propose changing the sentence to 'Some believe Chavez's policies to be contrary to democracy, including the present US government' unless someone comes up with something better. Seeing as I have a somewhat ridiculous 2-1 consensus in my favour (as one user cant take this project seriously and ;lodge specific and meaningful criticism). believe the source supports my change, and that the source did not give a specific reason for supporting the previous statement (what democracy in the region is right-wing? what democracy is not supported by Chavez in Latin America?). The source (short-bbc article, hardly authortative) however is not too vague to support my change, it shows that Chavez is criticised by some people as anti-democratic, but makes no sense with ' in the region '.
172.142.197.162 (
talk) 19:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
One last thing, mainly just an inquisititive note as it is a matter of POV, why is America worried about lack of democracy in Latin America, when has it supported Latin American democracy over the Munroe doctrine? When has it supported Latin American democracy full stop? When has it supported dictators? 'cough' Pinochet 'cough' I cant remeber... 172.142.197.162 ( talk) 19:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
PS as I mentioned before, some dyslexia issues, bad spelling mainly, feel free to correct if your bothered
Also (this is a bit off topic but Im replying to an above comment), if your worried about offending our leftist sensibilities, maybe you should check out the wikipedia articles on the middle east, islam, islamophobia, and all those wacky obscurist nationalist groups in the middle east that have their own way with all their articles. Wikipedia is not solely left, nor is it solely right, its mixed.
Okay Ive waited a day since my original reply to the crticism I recieved, theere havent been any ansers to the questions I asked (in the big paragraph) yet, therefore ill log into my account and make the change I proposed (if I can retrieve my password...), you can remove it if you provide a reason why the statement as it is is not a logical fallacy, or you can discuss it here if you think it is too poorly written. 172.216.245.193 ( talk) 10:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Since I cant find my password, it gives you guys 4 days =P, seeing as its unlikely one of you will make the change for me. 172.216.245.193 ( talk) 10:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Chávez's reforms have evoked controversy in Venezuela and abroad, receiving anything from vehement criticism and enthusiastic support. Some people, especially in the government of the United States, view Chávez as a threat to democracy in Latin America. [2] Others sympathize with his ideology [3] or welcome his bilateral trade and reciprocal aid agreements. [4] In 2005 and 2006 he was named one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people. [5] [6]
Well ive made a new account, I waited rather longer than I said I would, the change that I proposed is in the text and Ill be changing it to such a I havent heard any specific criticism of what I jave written. I have spelling and grammar issues so if you notice anything in what I have written feel free to correct it, but not change the meaning of what I have written without reason stated. Anti-BS Squad ( talk) 18:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
What?, you mean Chavez supports democracy?, seriously i dont know what you mean when you say there is little democracy outside venezuela when most goverments such as brazil, colombia, argentina and chile have democratic systems. Chavez does seem to be a threat, he supports and admires Fidel Castro, who is a dictator and is against media that criticises him, furthermore lately he has been supporting FARC guerrilas in colombia and proposed to stop qualifying them as terrorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.233.245.66 ( talk) 22:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I was the priginal editor here, I lost my account password---again!, and I cant be bothered to make a new account because getting anything doen on wikipedia is a nightmare, I didnt make any edits in the end, because I could see there would be problems, I just left it, so your actually attacking the contribution of a right-wing editor, I didnt claim most of Latin America was run by dictatorships, I did claim that most of democratic Latin America supports Chavez and is left-wing in leaning, of course there is always argument over what is democratic, in some people's eyes (such as possibly yourself) democracy is only when the right is in power, and whatever government the right has in power is a democracy, sorry to say this is not the case. I dont see how Chavez is anti-democratic, only the American and to an extent his own media presents him as such, his own media has been allowed to take political liberties against him (and continue!) to an extent that would be unheard of in the US, or the UK (which incidentally is where I come from), there is not much evidence to say that Chavez is anti-democratic, considering independant watchdogs have usually indicated his elections were freer than that of the first election of George Bush Jnr, and Chavez has a free medai which in the past has even been allowed to lauch a coup against him. Considering the fact that the US was happy to replace a fairly elected presidentwith someone who would most likely lead the country into an authoritarian dictatorship, and have done with numerous other leaders in similar circumstances in the past (see Pinochet), I really dont see how this article can take the view point that America is actually concerned about democracy in the region, looking at history and the present the mere idea seems laughable to be honest. 86.133.101.176 ( talk) 20:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
two issues (effort to keep to the point) Someone early on top of this page has suggested that chavez brough back democracy in venezuela. that is only correct if you are willing to admit that it was chavez himself who tried to put out democracy in the early nineties. Venezuela has been a democracy since the late 50's, if I'm not mistaken. I have a lot of friends from there. Also, true, the CIA backed pinochet, but becuase he was bringing soviets into chile. you have to be honest when making statements about history. Not to defend US policy, but that's how things were during the cold war. US has always supported democracy in the whole world. that is not something to laugh at. methods can be debated, however. Motive is another 20 dollars, as they say. 137.246.104.100 ( talk) 19:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Why can I not edit this page? It's nothing substantial, only a grammatical mistake.-- SCJE 18:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The error is found under the heading "2003-2004 recall Vote." the mistake itself is "The Colombians were outfit in Venezuelan military uniforms..." The word "outfit" should be in past tense (outfitted). Someone who is authorized please fix this. Thank you. -- SCJE 18:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
On the introduction of Hugo Chavez it is said that he studied political science at the graduate level without obtaining a degree and it cites note number 8 as reference, but when note number 8 is read (text is in spanish), it clearly states that he obtained a masters degree but with his thesis pending. I think this implies that he was pursuing a Phd, for which a thesis would be necessary, (otherwise it wouldn't be stated in his biographie that his thesis is still pending), but since it isn't necessary to do a thesis for a masters degree, he did in fact obtain a masters degree in political science as cited on note 8 which a link to a venezuelan goverment website. In conclusion, someone miscited reference number 8 in saying that he left without a degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santafe785 ( talk • contribs) 11:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Wrong, in the Venezuelan higher education system, a Thesis IS necessary for an Msc degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.109.32.51 ( talk) 16:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed Category:Native American politicians from this article. For one thing, that category's supercats make it clear that it means "Native Americans" in the sense of people indigenous to what is now the U.S. Also, the article does not substantiate that Huguo Chávez is an indigenous person.— Nat Krause( Talk!· What have I done?) 23:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
This is my first time suggesting a change to wikipedia, and I'm not sure how to do it, but I thought I'd mention this article I came across today, and how it's not in Chavez's main wiki entry. www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN1131818720080111
According to this Reuters article, during a state-of-the-nation address on Friday Jan. 11, 2008 Chavez once again brought up the idea of eliminating the constitutional provision on term-limits to his presidency and allowing him to run for re-election indefinitely-- despite a previous attempt failing back in Dec 2007. Although his second and final term is set to end in 2013, Chavez suggested holding a recall vote against himself in 2010, the earliest possible date, and "add[ing] a question in the referendum to also determine if Venezuelans want to give him the right of 'indefinite re-election.'"
We recently removed material from Code Pink after determining that said material was off-topic as far as Code Pink was concerned. An editor identified the material as being more appropriate on this article. If you're interested, here's the diff where we removed it: [2]. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 11:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Please can I remove the excerpt under 'Military Policy' because it is not a Military Policy at all. -- Uwaisis ( talk) 20:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
A January 22, 2008 article from Associated Press states, "Venezuelan troops are cracking down on the smuggling of food... the National Guard has seized about 750 tons of food... Hugo Chavez ordered the military to keep people from smuggling scarce items like milk... He's also threatened to seize farms and milk plants..." [3]
JRSP ( talk) 23:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Citation
There is a request for a citation under Early Life, the sentence can be sourced to The Observer, May 7th 2006, The new kid in the barrio. I do not seem to be able to put this in the article, or know how. Please include if possible. There is a link I found on the internet to the article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2006/may/07/featuresreview.review
Delete Can someone also delete the last thing added to the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez&diff=190976084&oldid=190271538 —Preceding unsigned comment added by N4GMiraflores ( talk • contribs) 20:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Following a March 1, 2008 Colombian raid on FARC headquarters inside Ecuador, in which FARC leader Raul Reyes and others were killed, Colombia's national police reported that documents recovered from Reyes's computer indicate financial ties between Hugo Chavez and the FARC. [4] One message from February 2008 allegedly mentioned US$300 million in Venezuelan support for FARC. The Colombian national police did not note, however, whether Venezuela actually delivered these funds to the rebels. Another document found on Reyes's laptop appears to contain a 1992 message from Hugo Chavez, who was imprisoned in Venezuela at the time. Chavez appears to be thanking the FARC for its delivery to Chavez of approximate US$150,000 (1992 value). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.242.80 ( talk) 21:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
yes it is, plus the fact that Interpol has investigated and found the laptop computers to be free of any manipulation, changes, etc, by the Colombian Govt.
http://www.telemundodallas.com/noticias/16275736/detail.html?rss=dal&psp=noticias (
talk) 16:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Note 27: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1418 does not appear to be a source worthy of wiki standards. I would venture to say that there are quite a few sources on this page that are full of these.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.157.98 ( talk) 02:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Venezuelanalysis has both news and opinion pieces, so you have to look at the actual source. In this case it is a professor of political science at cornell who has written several books on the subject, so I don't see the problem. Vbevins ( talk) 09:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Canadian Monkey said he's not clear "what part of WP:EL says [some external] link can't be used". Actually, the guideline says "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified", so I'd ask why this particular link should be included. JRSP ( talk) 05:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
JRSP ( talk) 12:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Under 'January 2007–present', second paragraph from the bottom it says 'At the same time the Venezuelan Government was also reported by BBC to be suing CNN'. Is this at the same time as noted in the paragraph below, which reports the same thing but in November 2007? And is the last paragraph even relevant? Isn't that just gossip? and should it be deleted? -- Uwaisis ( talk) 11:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel this article needs some restructuring? Clues that we need a plan:
- Article is way too long. I'm interested in all the subtopics related in this page, as well as in Chavéz, and I still can't stand to read it.
- Article is well over 200 references in length.
- Huge sections of timeline are not about Chavéz.
- The español language entry is half the length, with twice the content outside of the presidency timeline.
- Just like the content, much of the controversy relates to the timeline of his presidency, not Chavéz.
I'd like to see the presidential timeline simplified into 3 segments, with shorter excepts from the sub-pages. And more detail about his role in south american relations, early changes and drafting of the constitution, and the all-important demographic lines of "the popular movement" (you could read this entire article and not realize that the fundamental problem in Venezuela is that the poor are easily and readily polarized and Chavéz pushed for change at the cost of the media-controlling wealthy class). Basically, I think we should work to bring the english document in line with the spanish language one. Robbiemuffin ( talk) 18:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
There was an unsubstantiated declaration of Chavez as an "authoritarian socialist" in the intro. Although the nation's elections have been criticized by Chavez's opponents, he certainly hasn't shown any indication of outright authoritarianism. That's a heavy word. Joseph Stalin was an authoritarian socialist. Hugo Chavez; not so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktaylor ( talk • contribs) 14:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
"Chávez promotes a political doctrine of democratic socialism,[1] Latin American integration, and anti-imperialism." "Anti emperialism" goes way too far. For example Chávez calls kosov's prime minister a terrorist and refuses to recognize its independence [5] and does not support the Dalai Lama in the Tibetan cause [6]. That's fine, but you can't call someone like that an "anti-emperialist". - PietervHuis ( talk) 20:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Please check WP:Reliable sources. I don't think heritage.org or anarkismo.net count as "sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Anti-imperialism is a recurring theme in HC's discourse and it is important enough to be mentioned in lead. Even in the USA Today article [11], he says "They're trying to sabotage the Olympics in Beijing, and behind that is the hand of imperialism." As wikipedia editors we are not here to judge if Chávez discourse is sincere or not, or what is anti-imperialism or what is not. But multiple reliable sources support his promotion of anti-imperialism, whatever that means. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. JRSP ( talk) 01:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,552797,00.html "Chavez Says Merkel a Political Descendant of Hitler The German government has shrugged off a verbal attack on Chancellor Angela Merkel by Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez who called her a political descendant of Adolf Hitler and stopped just short of telling her to go to hell. The two leaders might meet at an upcoming summit in Peru. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.207.163 ( talk) 09:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
First off, what is known as "neo-liberalism", at least as he uses it, is basically the dominant force in the western world, and he uses it to describe conservatives as well as liberal people. This is something that members of the "socialist revolution" believe in but not many other people.
Secondly, it should say "socialism", rather than "democratic socialism". Simply not putting democratic beforehand is not saying that it isn't democratic, and besides, the Soviet Union considered itself a democracy. An example of democratic socialism is Sweden, and it's completely separate from Marxism, whereas Hugo Chavez's policies ARE inspired by Marxism, and he doesn't fit into this category. I think you would insult many people by calling Hugo Chavez a "democratic socialist", I mean, he talks about the 'socialist revolution' and the "Empire" just as much as any "communist" does. Contralya ( talk) 09:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
why are we keeping HC's links to terror groups out of discussion?
http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/PressReleases/PR2008/PR200817.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellyroldan ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
We need to update the inflation numbers since 2005. The Economist sites inflation in Venezuela as now being over 30% a year (over 26% a year is technically hyperinflation). This undermines is socialist platform and makes the poorest Venezuelans worse off... its pretty key to his presidency and probably will be his ultimate downfall so the graphs should show this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benggriff ( talk • contribs) 04:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I missed it, but I really didn't see much about the public's opinion of him. Not the international community, but the people of his country. Would some please create a section about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.207.31 ( talk) 03:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
He was friends with Saddam Hussein, like he is now with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. There are any sources were he praised this dictators ? I remember he visited Iraq in 1999 and probably his great problem with Iraq War, was because of his agreements with Saddam Hussein. He calls Bush the Devil and says he smells to sulphur, or "the greatest genocidal ever", but seems to forget that he was smelling roses when he visited Iraq in 1999 and never cared about the curds genocide. 85.244.48.94 ( talk) 16:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose then some references about his good relashionships with Saddam Hussein. Like it or not it's a fact. 81.193.190.20 ( talk) 19:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the word "friendship" is excessive, but he really was the first western Head of State to visit Saddam Hussein, in 2000, after Golf War, which drew criticism from then American administration. The current article shows his good relashionship with Saddam Hussein, saying that he himself drove Hugo Chávez in Bagdhad, and openly calls for the end of the United Nations santions in Cuba. Not a single word of him about the human rights question or the curds in Iraq. He can be seen as a dubious politician, he openly fights what he sees as American imperialism, and doesn't have any problem in having good relashionships with ruthless dictators. He doesn't also criticizes other sorts of imperialism, like the Chinese and the Russian. The current article makes us understand better his reactions thowards Iraq War. [18] 85.242.238.195 ( talk) 22:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I updated the economic charts with 2006 information (2007 information is not yet available). If you click on the graph, it will go to the page for that png image, which contains a link to the XLS file that I used in 2006. However, for some reason, Wikipedia doesn't allow me to upload an XLS file anymore, so I don't know how to update that old XLS file in there. Loisel ( talk) 00:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to Venezuela government statistics? For some reason, the WDI doesn't have any unemployment figures after 2003, and I vaguely recall that people didn't want me to use the CIA World Factbook figures.
I don't even know what the Venezuela government stats web site is. And in any case, I don't speak spanish.
Halp!
Loisel ( talk) 22:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 10:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This part deserves more development, since it's very controversial. He visited Saddam Hussein in Iraq, in 1999. It should be mencioned if he ever showed any criticism of his regimen. 81.193.220.58 ( talk) 16:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
There was an unholy mixture of US and international date formats. Which is it to be? During the audit, I chose US, since there seemed to be slightly more of them. Buzz me if you want them clicked back again. At least our readers see consistency in the main text now. Tony (talk) 08:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Ouch, I see MoS breaches, I see bad prose, I see potentially serious POV, I wonder about the overall balance of the references. Let's take a quick look.
Indeed, the opening is a forerunner to serious problems in the whole text. A makeover is necessary. Tony (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Its Fine, don't change anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.150.129 ( talk) 13:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello all,
I am working on a group project and would like to add some material found in my research. As this page is semi-protected I am unable to. I ask for cooperation as I am a newbie to this world of wikipedia.
Hugo Chavez, the current president of the democratic socialist state of Venezuela adopted ideologies of many significant historical leaders of the world. The Latin American military leader named Simon Bolivar has been his main inspiration. “El Libertador”, inspired Chavez’s integral approach to the political blueprint of new Venezuela. Simon Bolivar’s main goal was to unify the states of Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador under one great “La Gran Colombia”. Furthermore, the unification would strengthen the states to be equal competitors with major continental powers. It would ultimately diminish the poverty stricken societies of Latin America. Simon Bolivar’s influence can be seen throughout Chavez’s platform in politics, economics, law, education, morality and duty. (1) Chavez places great emphasis on Bolivar being more than just a symbol or spirit of the Revolution but a concept that is still relevant in the current state of Venezuela. Similarities between these leaders start in their mixed race heritage. Bolivar’s mixed race “zambo” is often omitted in historical accounts. Chavez has been known to be proud of his indigenous and black roots. He has expressed that having indigenous blood means that his roots are the deepest and most authentic. (2) Moreover, their military leadership has shaped and continues to shape their commitment to protect and provide service to their nation. Both men can be considered to be the utmost patriotic figures.
1) Boudin, Chesa (2006) Venezuelan Revolution – 100 Questions, 100 Answers, New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, p 7-8. 2) Guevara, Aleida(2005) Chavez,Venezuela & The New Latin America, Melbourne, Australia: Ocean Press, p 18-19.
The above is the material I would like to incorporate throughout where suitable. Please let me know how I shall proceed with this or if there are any objections.
( CanadianChavista ( talk) 05:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC))
I think it also should be pointed that, unlike Simón Bolívar, Hugo Chávez is not an integral anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist, because he totally supports chinese imperialism in Tibet and denied the right to self-determination and independence of Tibet last year, in a way totally opposed to what "bolivarianism" really should be. It also should be noted that, despite Hugo Chávez claims to be a devout Catholic, that the Catholic Church exists in a clandestine way in China, except in Macao and Hong Kong, two paradises of neoliberal capitalism. Despite all this, Chávez is a keen supporter of China's authoritarian, anti-democratic and imperialist regimen. 85.242.238.24 ( talk) 17:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but I was simply stating facts. His support for Chinese imperialism is debated above and a quick search at the google proves it. 85.242.236.5 ( talk) 22:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I check the footnotes on some of the topics, knowing the footnote cannot possibly support what has been stated and low and behold it does not. There is no balance to this, it is simply awful. Some of the subjects which come to mind are: Why has there been no mention of the tripling of the murder rate under Chavez’ time? Statistically you are more likely to be murdered or seriously assaulted on the streets of Caracas than you are as a prisoner in a US jail (sorry don’t have the footnote but just Google ‘violence, murder in Venezuela’ and you will get the drift). It is stated that ‘troops stormed Miraflores and freed Chavez’- crikey that is news to me and probably every Venezuelan who lived through it all- these pages are utter fantasy. Where is the detail of the peaceful opposition protest the day the coup took place where tens of people were gunned down in the street- never did the government investigate this. Why was Rincon bought back when he said Chavez resigned? Rincon never gave an account of this. You have to question the use of the ‘Cuban medical’ staff or Castro’s slaves- is this really Socialism where you send your people to foreign lands and pay them $20 a month? Frequent mentions are made of assassination attempts. I do not think it was reported here (I was falling asleep in the article) but it has been reported in the media that Chavez claimed a sniper tried to shoot him getting off a plan in Zulia and that the guy escaped across the border into Colombia- he was thought to have been an ex Zulia policeman. Now read that last sentence again and please ask yourself what have they been smoking! It's just the usual Castro stuff, each trying to out number the assasination attempts against them. The whole article is full of rubbish- a bit like the streets of Venezuela really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.210 ( talk) 17:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
What is actually stated, if you cut and paste, is that 'Venezuelan soldiers loyal to Chávez...later stormed and retook the presidential palace". They were the Presidential Guard, and you can watch them do just this 34 minutes into John Pilger's 'The War on Democracy'. However, again according to the same film, Chavez was not freed from Miraflores, because he was not in Miraflores, but was helicoptered (a verb one doesn't get to use enough) in from wherever he had been taken by his kidnappers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.219.193 ( talk) 03:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Predictions for 2007 are outdated in 2009. BTW, did the predictions come true?
The leading business daily of Argentina, Ambito Financiero, predicted that Venezuela under Chavez in 2007 would have a "nationalized economy, out-of-control spending, government by decree, and perpetual re-election." [7] The motion which included the provision to allow indefinite presidential re-election was voted down in national referendum in 2007. The daily also compared Chavez to King Louis XIV of France, stating his 2007 inauguration would mark "a concentration of power without precedent in Venezuela." [8]
JRSP ( talk) 12:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it's worth noting how there has been a rise in anti-semitism in Venezuela since Chavez's rise to power, including government sponsorship. link. Also he frequently criticizes Israel and the US' support of Israel. Here is another article to back up his personal anti-semitism. Deeejazzy ( talk) 21:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that better sources would be needed. Jim Lobe has written an article about neo-con attacks on Chavez as an anti-semite http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=8390 which I think puts the issue in perspective. Also, the State Department definition is not very helpful. It distinguishes between "objective criticism of Israeli policies and anti-Semitism". Similarly, criticism of Chavez is not necessarily directed against Venezuelans. The Four Deuces ( talk) 23:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
C'mon! When a nation, such as Israel, carries out a program of ethnic cleansing, then comparisons to the Nazis seem reasonable. It can be argued that Israel's treatment of its Palestinian minority amounts to ethnic cleansing. It's funny; anti-Semitism is a disease of totalitarianism and the Right, yet, Rightists always scream "anti-Semitism" when Israel is criticised. The supporters of the far-Right junta of George W were very good at this. And it seems that this hasn't changed. 220.233.176.162 ( talk) 05:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum. Rd232 talk 16:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
a reliable WP:RS: Centro Simon Wiesenthal: "The Simon Wiesenthal Center strongly condemned antisemitc statements by the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez Frías, who had said that “the world has wealth for all, but some minorities, the descendants of the same people that crucified Christ, have taken over all the wealth of the world”. Chávez made this statements during a celebration of Christmas, last Dec. 24, at a rehabilitation center." -- 84.137.90.167 ( talk) 17:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
This article uses Venezuelanalysis.com extensively, which is a clear violation to NPOV and RS. Venezuelanalysis has received funding from the Chavez government, its founder (Martin Sanchez) is Chavez's Consul in Chicago and its editor (Gregory Wilpert) is married to Chavez's Consul in NY, ergo as independent as an official site can be. If it is to be used as a source its evident conflict of interests need be disclaimed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alekboyd ( talk • contribs) 15:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I repeat my question, Alek: Where in the article can you find a doubious statement sourced on venezuelanalisis? JRSP ( talk) 15:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems that those supporting the Venezuelan President in these pages have as much of a problem respecting Wikipedia:CIV principles as their iconic hero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.170.44 ( talk) 17:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)(in Spanish)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
While Hugo Chavez may have said that he is a trotskyist, his actions and policies don't really resemble trotskyism at all. I think he was probably just using it as another word for Socialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spongesquid ( talk • contribs) 22:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Trotskyism is a form of socialism. I know nothing about it, but just because it is a socialist philosophy doesn't mean that Chavez is a faithful follower of it.-Jared Croft
This sentence is based on an opinion article and therefore cannot be presented as a statement of fact:
Only after polls showed that 60% of Venezuelans opposed the measure did Chavez add incentives such as reducing the workday from eight to six hours and lowering the voting age from 18 to 16. [1]
[1] JRSP 00:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This caudillo crap is beyond shameless.... Chavez is the democratically elected president of Venezuela, the very first sentence of this article shows the article's bias...
Another Economist/CIA backed edit no doubt. -- 24.150.77.3 ( talk) 18:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Well there were several news stories about FBI and CIA systematically editing Wikipedia, and seeing as how this article features so many Economist sources, and we all know what that journal advocates, I assumed this was the approved edit. I'd rather post my outrage here than just edit eithout approval. -- 24.150.77.3 ( talk) 21:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree change it to dictator he is subverting the rights of the ooppsition and stole the last election. 65.96.135.42 ( talk) 20:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Find evidence of a stolen election if you want to make an accusation of that. I saw a landslide in his favor. Also, the opposition dropped out, he did nothing impacting their foolish decision. Claiming that he cheated because he has no opposition is like fighting the fur industry by buying a massive ammount of furs, and then shouting at them for killing more animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.133.20 ( talk) 03:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
So I guess that Hitler winning elections and referendums without opposition makes him a "democratic leader", what about Stalin's opposition, I haven't seen opposing parties in his ballot boxes. The opposition withdrew BECAUSE Chavez is undemocratic, it is foolish to say that he is a democrat just BECAUSE he showed up for an uncontested election. Unfortunately for the international community wining elections (even uncontested) is enough to be called a democrat, nobody cares if the person in question actually governs as a democrat, and alas Wikipedia does the same.... 190.74.70.77 ( talk) 22:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.74.70.77 ( talk) 22:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a note, I would make a change if I could, I think someone here should take care of it.
Personally, I don´t think the declaration "I am a trotskyst" is good enough as to be qualified as a valid reference when Chavez is described as a troskyst properly.
Also, I dont see any special influence of Trotsky in Chavez´s work.
I think, the sentence should be changed from "He is also a trotskyst" to "He is a self-declared trotskyst".-------sabin
Well how much more can he do other than claim to be a Trot, I mean what would you accept as evidence in his actions that he is a Trot? If this is you're logic then every politician in the world really could be called a 'self-declared conservative' or a 'self-declared socialist' because anyone can call into question their beliefs and their application as a leader. Chavez's action are actually alot like Trotskyism, unlike other socialist ideologies Chavez did not think straight after he came to power that the revolution was over, he thinks of it as an ongoing struggle to strength the revolution and build socialism practically in this modern century. 21st Century Socialism and Bolivarianism is also alot like Trotskyism because it rejects the bureaucratic apparatus of the state as the driving force and instead holds a socialism 'from the ground up' grassroots populism to be the way to socialism. Chavez has clearly proven this with his local cooperatives and communes which have free health facilities and cheap food outlets. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
124.187.225.104 (
talk) 08:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
What would be enough? A reference to a socialism specialized third party that states so.
I could claim to be Superman, but that doesnt make me that guy. Nazi means "national socialist" and them claiming to be socialists don´t turn them automatically into so.
The difference here is that most "conservatives" or "socialists" dont claim to be anything, just do their works and thats all. Also, lot of people could relate Chavez´s bureaucritic policies and control over the justice system more to those of Stalin or Fidel Castro.
Therefore, Wikipedia being an accurate information provider, is required to take a "I am also a trostkyst" as it is, a declaration from Chavez himself.
Im not saying he is not a Trotskyst, and that is not what I´m discussing. But there is no valid reference, and without any more deep source, Wikipedia should leave it open for the reader to decide it.------ sabin
Stalin or Fidel Castro? Since when did Stalin or Fidel Castro permit a media to be in existence that actively supported coups and attempts on the leaders life? In most western countries this is not allowed, it is strange in such an autocracy that Hugo Chavez permits (grudingly, admittedly) a media that tried to overthrow him and tries to influence the countries political outcomes. 172.142.197.162 ( talk) 16:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
???? Chavez´s bureaucritic policies and control over the justice system , theres no one talking about his media polices, which by the way even if he permits so, he has demostrated he has the power to override and discard media anytime he wants, wich is not precisely a demostration of free speech.----sabin
Anyone beside me notice that in the Hugo Chavez Election Results table, about a third of the way down the page, the percentages add up to 130 percent of the population? 59% voted no + 41% voted yes + 30% did not vote adds up to 130%
The "voted no" and "voted yes" only take in account those who voted. 157.253.22.14 20:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that there is no outward link to the "Criticism of Hugo Chávez" topic, although there is a link from that topic to this. Is merely linking to criticism considered a breach of NPOV? The tone of this topic edges over into hagiography already, and placing all the criticism in a separate topic with no link to it is highly unusual -- perhaps in itself a breach of NPOV. Gruffbear 02:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see it. Sorry. Gruffbear 02:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Im a bit miffed about the statment 'Some foreign governments, especially the government of the United States, view Chávez as a threat to democracy in the region', I dont have a problem with this as it is sourced, and that this is an excuse that the USA often use to denounce him, however I find it strange that this can be legitimate criticism A: that Chavez is democratically elected and has brought back democratic elections which were not there previously B: 'threat to democracy in Latin America', seriously Im a bit wtf (pardon my language), how can Chavez be a threat to democracy in Latin America when it barely exists outside Venezuela, when the United States has been the main threat to Latin American democratically elected governments (watch 'The war on democracy' despite its title and obviously set opinion, it provides factually udisputable evidence) , and where it does exist it is universally left-wing and therefore universally supported by Chavez. As I say I dont have a problem with saying that the USA claims to oppose Chavez because they view him as a threat to Latin American democracy (although, what democracy? its ruled by the Munroe doctrine) however the sentence quoted shouldnt be placed in the first paragraph, as to me at least it is a logical fallacy, it should be rephrased and put in a criticism section. I do have a pro-Chavez opion I dont deny it, but I believe the points I have made are perfectly logical, and we all have opinions, even those who contst what I have said. 172.143.124.86 20:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I would be in favor of the change you propose. The entire topic seems to have been thoroughly vetted so as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of the leftist Wikipedia reader community; so much so that it reads like a Hugo Chavez puff piece. So why not make the change? It will make this topic even sillier. (At some point, somebody might be tempted to flag this topic as "a work of fiction written in in-universe style," but that's another issue.)
Do topics written like this tend to ruin the cred of the Wikipedia concept? I'm not sure. But in any case, the change you propose can't possibly make this topic worse, so go for it. Gruffbear 17:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh well, it looks like I have a 2-1 consensus (having waited a week) because some editors cant take the project seriosuly, and feel they have to try and be funny......
Also check the sction below (i havent moved it up here yet) where I clarified what my points were and tried to show that Im not just POV spoapboxing. 172.142.232.113 ( talk) 00:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I moved this from the section below, a user replied to my comment (I think) in the wrong section 172.142.197.162 ( talk) 19:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC) :
Idiot! The elections were fixed beyond all proportion. You're just plain wrong. WRONG. grrr. Have you even been to Venezuela? No, probably not. The contention that Chavez is a threat to democracy is correct and substantiated. To leave it out of the article would be biased in favor of this dictator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.66.1 ( talk) 18:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I assume you meant to paste that in the section above, in response to what I wrote, please refrain from referring to me as an idiot, I do not think of myself as an idiot (I have a high IQ anyway...), however maybe I am... (my spelling suggests so =P) but it is not really for you to say so, you are right (admittedly) that I have not been to Venezuela. However, I have studied this topic (in both English and Spanish) and I know for a fact that these elections have been watched closely, and have been deemed free by both the left and the right (except possibly some far-right wing groups, though it would be presumptious to assume that you are a far right winger). I would say Venezuela (from what I gather about it) is pretty fair, considering Chavez's own media is allowed to launch specific and derogotory attacks on him, and tried to initiate a coup against him, and still not being competely smashed after Chavez's return to power..... living in England I can tell you that the media here is not allowed to go out of its way to criticise the government at all, its meant to remain impartial, in fact the BBC was prosecuted for not being impartial, so please dont give me a lecture about liberty of the media. My point was this, to me the statement that 'Chavez is viewed as a threat to democracy in the region ' simply makes no logical sense to me, its not that is unsourced, it just is a logical fallacy, like the sttement 'chairs generally have two legs' for example, I would have no problem with the statement 'Some hold the opinon that Chavez does not support democracy' . Specifically in the region makes no sense, the source used (BBC) only vaguely points to criticism and itself does not elaborate, I view the BBC a reputable as far as it goes, but it hardly gives any reason for its statment. In the region (by this I assume South America) the only democratically elected governments currently are left-wing, please name for me a democratically elected right-wing government in this region of South America, and ill change my opinion. By democratically elected I dont mean supported by America and its Munroe doctrine, I mean actually democratic with free elections. If you cannot give me an example I assume I am correct in believing the statement is a logical fallacy, and ill change it to what I proposed (unless someone can come up with something better). As far as I know Chavez is not a threat to any left-wing democracies in South America, and since the only demorcacies there are left-wing (as far as I know) he is not anti-democracy in the region. Also my question that: If Chavez is anti-democratic why did he liberalise Venezuela and its media? still has not been adressed. 172.142.232.113 ( talk) 00:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Im giving you guys a day to come up with the awnsers to my questions, If there arent any awnsers Ill assume I am correct in believing the statement in question was a logical fallacy, I propose changing the sentence to 'Some believe Chavez's policies to be contrary to democracy, including the present US government' unless someone comes up with something better. Seeing as I have a somewhat ridiculous 2-1 consensus in my favour (as one user cant take this project seriously and ;lodge specific and meaningful criticism). believe the source supports my change, and that the source did not give a specific reason for supporting the previous statement (what democracy in the region is right-wing? what democracy is not supported by Chavez in Latin America?). The source (short-bbc article, hardly authortative) however is not too vague to support my change, it shows that Chavez is criticised by some people as anti-democratic, but makes no sense with ' in the region '.
172.142.197.162 (
talk) 19:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
One last thing, mainly just an inquisititive note as it is a matter of POV, why is America worried about lack of democracy in Latin America, when has it supported Latin American democracy over the Munroe doctrine? When has it supported Latin American democracy full stop? When has it supported dictators? 'cough' Pinochet 'cough' I cant remeber... 172.142.197.162 ( talk) 19:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
PS as I mentioned before, some dyslexia issues, bad spelling mainly, feel free to correct if your bothered
Also (this is a bit off topic but Im replying to an above comment), if your worried about offending our leftist sensibilities, maybe you should check out the wikipedia articles on the middle east, islam, islamophobia, and all those wacky obscurist nationalist groups in the middle east that have their own way with all their articles. Wikipedia is not solely left, nor is it solely right, its mixed.
Okay Ive waited a day since my original reply to the crticism I recieved, theere havent been any ansers to the questions I asked (in the big paragraph) yet, therefore ill log into my account and make the change I proposed (if I can retrieve my password...), you can remove it if you provide a reason why the statement as it is is not a logical fallacy, or you can discuss it here if you think it is too poorly written. 172.216.245.193 ( talk) 10:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Since I cant find my password, it gives you guys 4 days =P, seeing as its unlikely one of you will make the change for me. 172.216.245.193 ( talk) 10:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Chávez's reforms have evoked controversy in Venezuela and abroad, receiving anything from vehement criticism and enthusiastic support. Some people, especially in the government of the United States, view Chávez as a threat to democracy in Latin America. [2] Others sympathize with his ideology [3] or welcome his bilateral trade and reciprocal aid agreements. [4] In 2005 and 2006 he was named one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people. [5] [6]
Well ive made a new account, I waited rather longer than I said I would, the change that I proposed is in the text and Ill be changing it to such a I havent heard any specific criticism of what I jave written. I have spelling and grammar issues so if you notice anything in what I have written feel free to correct it, but not change the meaning of what I have written without reason stated. Anti-BS Squad ( talk) 18:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
What?, you mean Chavez supports democracy?, seriously i dont know what you mean when you say there is little democracy outside venezuela when most goverments such as brazil, colombia, argentina and chile have democratic systems. Chavez does seem to be a threat, he supports and admires Fidel Castro, who is a dictator and is against media that criticises him, furthermore lately he has been supporting FARC guerrilas in colombia and proposed to stop qualifying them as terrorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.233.245.66 ( talk) 22:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I was the priginal editor here, I lost my account password---again!, and I cant be bothered to make a new account because getting anything doen on wikipedia is a nightmare, I didnt make any edits in the end, because I could see there would be problems, I just left it, so your actually attacking the contribution of a right-wing editor, I didnt claim most of Latin America was run by dictatorships, I did claim that most of democratic Latin America supports Chavez and is left-wing in leaning, of course there is always argument over what is democratic, in some people's eyes (such as possibly yourself) democracy is only when the right is in power, and whatever government the right has in power is a democracy, sorry to say this is not the case. I dont see how Chavez is anti-democratic, only the American and to an extent his own media presents him as such, his own media has been allowed to take political liberties against him (and continue!) to an extent that would be unheard of in the US, or the UK (which incidentally is where I come from), there is not much evidence to say that Chavez is anti-democratic, considering independant watchdogs have usually indicated his elections were freer than that of the first election of George Bush Jnr, and Chavez has a free medai which in the past has even been allowed to lauch a coup against him. Considering the fact that the US was happy to replace a fairly elected presidentwith someone who would most likely lead the country into an authoritarian dictatorship, and have done with numerous other leaders in similar circumstances in the past (see Pinochet), I really dont see how this article can take the view point that America is actually concerned about democracy in the region, looking at history and the present the mere idea seems laughable to be honest. 86.133.101.176 ( talk) 20:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
two issues (effort to keep to the point) Someone early on top of this page has suggested that chavez brough back democracy in venezuela. that is only correct if you are willing to admit that it was chavez himself who tried to put out democracy in the early nineties. Venezuela has been a democracy since the late 50's, if I'm not mistaken. I have a lot of friends from there. Also, true, the CIA backed pinochet, but becuase he was bringing soviets into chile. you have to be honest when making statements about history. Not to defend US policy, but that's how things were during the cold war. US has always supported democracy in the whole world. that is not something to laugh at. methods can be debated, however. Motive is another 20 dollars, as they say. 137.246.104.100 ( talk) 19:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Why can I not edit this page? It's nothing substantial, only a grammatical mistake.-- SCJE 18:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The error is found under the heading "2003-2004 recall Vote." the mistake itself is "The Colombians were outfit in Venezuelan military uniforms..." The word "outfit" should be in past tense (outfitted). Someone who is authorized please fix this. Thank you. -- SCJE 18:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
On the introduction of Hugo Chavez it is said that he studied political science at the graduate level without obtaining a degree and it cites note number 8 as reference, but when note number 8 is read (text is in spanish), it clearly states that he obtained a masters degree but with his thesis pending. I think this implies that he was pursuing a Phd, for which a thesis would be necessary, (otherwise it wouldn't be stated in his biographie that his thesis is still pending), but since it isn't necessary to do a thesis for a masters degree, he did in fact obtain a masters degree in political science as cited on note 8 which a link to a venezuelan goverment website. In conclusion, someone miscited reference number 8 in saying that he left without a degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santafe785 ( talk • contribs) 11:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Wrong, in the Venezuelan higher education system, a Thesis IS necessary for an Msc degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.109.32.51 ( talk) 16:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed Category:Native American politicians from this article. For one thing, that category's supercats make it clear that it means "Native Americans" in the sense of people indigenous to what is now the U.S. Also, the article does not substantiate that Huguo Chávez is an indigenous person.— Nat Krause( Talk!· What have I done?) 23:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
This is my first time suggesting a change to wikipedia, and I'm not sure how to do it, but I thought I'd mention this article I came across today, and how it's not in Chavez's main wiki entry. www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN1131818720080111
According to this Reuters article, during a state-of-the-nation address on Friday Jan. 11, 2008 Chavez once again brought up the idea of eliminating the constitutional provision on term-limits to his presidency and allowing him to run for re-election indefinitely-- despite a previous attempt failing back in Dec 2007. Although his second and final term is set to end in 2013, Chavez suggested holding a recall vote against himself in 2010, the earliest possible date, and "add[ing] a question in the referendum to also determine if Venezuelans want to give him the right of 'indefinite re-election.'"
We recently removed material from Code Pink after determining that said material was off-topic as far as Code Pink was concerned. An editor identified the material as being more appropriate on this article. If you're interested, here's the diff where we removed it: [2]. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 11:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Please can I remove the excerpt under 'Military Policy' because it is not a Military Policy at all. -- Uwaisis ( talk) 20:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
A January 22, 2008 article from Associated Press states, "Venezuelan troops are cracking down on the smuggling of food... the National Guard has seized about 750 tons of food... Hugo Chavez ordered the military to keep people from smuggling scarce items like milk... He's also threatened to seize farms and milk plants..." [3]
JRSP ( talk) 23:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Citation
There is a request for a citation under Early Life, the sentence can be sourced to The Observer, May 7th 2006, The new kid in the barrio. I do not seem to be able to put this in the article, or know how. Please include if possible. There is a link I found on the internet to the article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2006/may/07/featuresreview.review
Delete Can someone also delete the last thing added to the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez&diff=190976084&oldid=190271538 —Preceding unsigned comment added by N4GMiraflores ( talk • contribs) 20:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Following a March 1, 2008 Colombian raid on FARC headquarters inside Ecuador, in which FARC leader Raul Reyes and others were killed, Colombia's national police reported that documents recovered from Reyes's computer indicate financial ties between Hugo Chavez and the FARC. [4] One message from February 2008 allegedly mentioned US$300 million in Venezuelan support for FARC. The Colombian national police did not note, however, whether Venezuela actually delivered these funds to the rebels. Another document found on Reyes's laptop appears to contain a 1992 message from Hugo Chavez, who was imprisoned in Venezuela at the time. Chavez appears to be thanking the FARC for its delivery to Chavez of approximate US$150,000 (1992 value). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.242.80 ( talk) 21:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
yes it is, plus the fact that Interpol has investigated and found the laptop computers to be free of any manipulation, changes, etc, by the Colombian Govt.
http://www.telemundodallas.com/noticias/16275736/detail.html?rss=dal&psp=noticias (
talk) 16:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Note 27: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1418 does not appear to be a source worthy of wiki standards. I would venture to say that there are quite a few sources on this page that are full of these.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.157.98 ( talk) 02:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Venezuelanalysis has both news and opinion pieces, so you have to look at the actual source. In this case it is a professor of political science at cornell who has written several books on the subject, so I don't see the problem. Vbevins ( talk) 09:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Canadian Monkey said he's not clear "what part of WP:EL says [some external] link can't be used". Actually, the guideline says "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified", so I'd ask why this particular link should be included. JRSP ( talk) 05:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
JRSP ( talk) 12:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Under 'January 2007–present', second paragraph from the bottom it says 'At the same time the Venezuelan Government was also reported by BBC to be suing CNN'. Is this at the same time as noted in the paragraph below, which reports the same thing but in November 2007? And is the last paragraph even relevant? Isn't that just gossip? and should it be deleted? -- Uwaisis ( talk) 11:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel this article needs some restructuring? Clues that we need a plan:
- Article is way too long. I'm interested in all the subtopics related in this page, as well as in Chavéz, and I still can't stand to read it.
- Article is well over 200 references in length.
- Huge sections of timeline are not about Chavéz.
- The español language entry is half the length, with twice the content outside of the presidency timeline.
- Just like the content, much of the controversy relates to the timeline of his presidency, not Chavéz.
I'd like to see the presidential timeline simplified into 3 segments, with shorter excepts from the sub-pages. And more detail about his role in south american relations, early changes and drafting of the constitution, and the all-important demographic lines of "the popular movement" (you could read this entire article and not realize that the fundamental problem in Venezuela is that the poor are easily and readily polarized and Chavéz pushed for change at the cost of the media-controlling wealthy class). Basically, I think we should work to bring the english document in line with the spanish language one. Robbiemuffin ( talk) 18:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
There was an unsubstantiated declaration of Chavez as an "authoritarian socialist" in the intro. Although the nation's elections have been criticized by Chavez's opponents, he certainly hasn't shown any indication of outright authoritarianism. That's a heavy word. Joseph Stalin was an authoritarian socialist. Hugo Chavez; not so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktaylor ( talk • contribs) 14:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
"Chávez promotes a political doctrine of democratic socialism,[1] Latin American integration, and anti-imperialism." "Anti emperialism" goes way too far. For example Chávez calls kosov's prime minister a terrorist and refuses to recognize its independence [5] and does not support the Dalai Lama in the Tibetan cause [6]. That's fine, but you can't call someone like that an "anti-emperialist". - PietervHuis ( talk) 20:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Please check WP:Reliable sources. I don't think heritage.org or anarkismo.net count as "sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Anti-imperialism is a recurring theme in HC's discourse and it is important enough to be mentioned in lead. Even in the USA Today article [11], he says "They're trying to sabotage the Olympics in Beijing, and behind that is the hand of imperialism." As wikipedia editors we are not here to judge if Chávez discourse is sincere or not, or what is anti-imperialism or what is not. But multiple reliable sources support his promotion of anti-imperialism, whatever that means. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. JRSP ( talk) 01:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,552797,00.html "Chavez Says Merkel a Political Descendant of Hitler The German government has shrugged off a verbal attack on Chancellor Angela Merkel by Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez who called her a political descendant of Adolf Hitler and stopped just short of telling her to go to hell. The two leaders might meet at an upcoming summit in Peru. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.207.163 ( talk) 09:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
First off, what is known as "neo-liberalism", at least as he uses it, is basically the dominant force in the western world, and he uses it to describe conservatives as well as liberal people. This is something that members of the "socialist revolution" believe in but not many other people.
Secondly, it should say "socialism", rather than "democratic socialism". Simply not putting democratic beforehand is not saying that it isn't democratic, and besides, the Soviet Union considered itself a democracy. An example of democratic socialism is Sweden, and it's completely separate from Marxism, whereas Hugo Chavez's policies ARE inspired by Marxism, and he doesn't fit into this category. I think you would insult many people by calling Hugo Chavez a "democratic socialist", I mean, he talks about the 'socialist revolution' and the "Empire" just as much as any "communist" does. Contralya ( talk) 09:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
why are we keeping HC's links to terror groups out of discussion?
http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/PressReleases/PR2008/PR200817.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellyroldan ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
We need to update the inflation numbers since 2005. The Economist sites inflation in Venezuela as now being over 30% a year (over 26% a year is technically hyperinflation). This undermines is socialist platform and makes the poorest Venezuelans worse off... its pretty key to his presidency and probably will be his ultimate downfall so the graphs should show this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benggriff ( talk • contribs) 04:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I missed it, but I really didn't see much about the public's opinion of him. Not the international community, but the people of his country. Would some please create a section about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.207.31 ( talk) 03:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
He was friends with Saddam Hussein, like he is now with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. There are any sources were he praised this dictators ? I remember he visited Iraq in 1999 and probably his great problem with Iraq War, was because of his agreements with Saddam Hussein. He calls Bush the Devil and says he smells to sulphur, or "the greatest genocidal ever", but seems to forget that he was smelling roses when he visited Iraq in 1999 and never cared about the curds genocide. 85.244.48.94 ( talk) 16:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose then some references about his good relashionships with Saddam Hussein. Like it or not it's a fact. 81.193.190.20 ( talk) 19:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the word "friendship" is excessive, but he really was the first western Head of State to visit Saddam Hussein, in 2000, after Golf War, which drew criticism from then American administration. The current article shows his good relashionship with Saddam Hussein, saying that he himself drove Hugo Chávez in Bagdhad, and openly calls for the end of the United Nations santions in Cuba. Not a single word of him about the human rights question or the curds in Iraq. He can be seen as a dubious politician, he openly fights what he sees as American imperialism, and doesn't have any problem in having good relashionships with ruthless dictators. He doesn't also criticizes other sorts of imperialism, like the Chinese and the Russian. The current article makes us understand better his reactions thowards Iraq War. [18] 85.242.238.195 ( talk) 22:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I updated the economic charts with 2006 information (2007 information is not yet available). If you click on the graph, it will go to the page for that png image, which contains a link to the XLS file that I used in 2006. However, for some reason, Wikipedia doesn't allow me to upload an XLS file anymore, so I don't know how to update that old XLS file in there. Loisel ( talk) 00:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to Venezuela government statistics? For some reason, the WDI doesn't have any unemployment figures after 2003, and I vaguely recall that people didn't want me to use the CIA World Factbook figures.
I don't even know what the Venezuela government stats web site is. And in any case, I don't speak spanish.
Halp!
Loisel ( talk) 22:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 10:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This part deserves more development, since it's very controversial. He visited Saddam Hussein in Iraq, in 1999. It should be mencioned if he ever showed any criticism of his regimen. 81.193.220.58 ( talk) 16:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
There was an unholy mixture of US and international date formats. Which is it to be? During the audit, I chose US, since there seemed to be slightly more of them. Buzz me if you want them clicked back again. At least our readers see consistency in the main text now. Tony (talk) 08:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Ouch, I see MoS breaches, I see bad prose, I see potentially serious POV, I wonder about the overall balance of the references. Let's take a quick look.
Indeed, the opening is a forerunner to serious problems in the whole text. A makeover is necessary. Tony (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Its Fine, don't change anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.150.129 ( talk) 13:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello all,
I am working on a group project and would like to add some material found in my research. As this page is semi-protected I am unable to. I ask for cooperation as I am a newbie to this world of wikipedia.
Hugo Chavez, the current president of the democratic socialist state of Venezuela adopted ideologies of many significant historical leaders of the world. The Latin American military leader named Simon Bolivar has been his main inspiration. “El Libertador”, inspired Chavez’s integral approach to the political blueprint of new Venezuela. Simon Bolivar’s main goal was to unify the states of Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador under one great “La Gran Colombia”. Furthermore, the unification would strengthen the states to be equal competitors with major continental powers. It would ultimately diminish the poverty stricken societies of Latin America. Simon Bolivar’s influence can be seen throughout Chavez’s platform in politics, economics, law, education, morality and duty. (1) Chavez places great emphasis on Bolivar being more than just a symbol or spirit of the Revolution but a concept that is still relevant in the current state of Venezuela. Similarities between these leaders start in their mixed race heritage. Bolivar’s mixed race “zambo” is often omitted in historical accounts. Chavez has been known to be proud of his indigenous and black roots. He has expressed that having indigenous blood means that his roots are the deepest and most authentic. (2) Moreover, their military leadership has shaped and continues to shape their commitment to protect and provide service to their nation. Both men can be considered to be the utmost patriotic figures.
1) Boudin, Chesa (2006) Venezuelan Revolution – 100 Questions, 100 Answers, New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, p 7-8. 2) Guevara, Aleida(2005) Chavez,Venezuela & The New Latin America, Melbourne, Australia: Ocean Press, p 18-19.
The above is the material I would like to incorporate throughout where suitable. Please let me know how I shall proceed with this or if there are any objections.
( CanadianChavista ( talk) 05:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC))
I think it also should be pointed that, unlike Simón Bolívar, Hugo Chávez is not an integral anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist, because he totally supports chinese imperialism in Tibet and denied the right to self-determination and independence of Tibet last year, in a way totally opposed to what "bolivarianism" really should be. It also should be noted that, despite Hugo Chávez claims to be a devout Catholic, that the Catholic Church exists in a clandestine way in China, except in Macao and Hong Kong, two paradises of neoliberal capitalism. Despite all this, Chávez is a keen supporter of China's authoritarian, anti-democratic and imperialist regimen. 85.242.238.24 ( talk) 17:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but I was simply stating facts. His support for Chinese imperialism is debated above and a quick search at the google proves it. 85.242.236.5 ( talk) 22:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I check the footnotes on some of the topics, knowing the footnote cannot possibly support what has been stated and low and behold it does not. There is no balance to this, it is simply awful. Some of the subjects which come to mind are: Why has there been no mention of the tripling of the murder rate under Chavez’ time? Statistically you are more likely to be murdered or seriously assaulted on the streets of Caracas than you are as a prisoner in a US jail (sorry don’t have the footnote but just Google ‘violence, murder in Venezuela’ and you will get the drift). It is stated that ‘troops stormed Miraflores and freed Chavez’- crikey that is news to me and probably every Venezuelan who lived through it all- these pages are utter fantasy. Where is the detail of the peaceful opposition protest the day the coup took place where tens of people were gunned down in the street- never did the government investigate this. Why was Rincon bought back when he said Chavez resigned? Rincon never gave an account of this. You have to question the use of the ‘Cuban medical’ staff or Castro’s slaves- is this really Socialism where you send your people to foreign lands and pay them $20 a month? Frequent mentions are made of assassination attempts. I do not think it was reported here (I was falling asleep in the article) but it has been reported in the media that Chavez claimed a sniper tried to shoot him getting off a plan in Zulia and that the guy escaped across the border into Colombia- he was thought to have been an ex Zulia policeman. Now read that last sentence again and please ask yourself what have they been smoking! It's just the usual Castro stuff, each trying to out number the assasination attempts against them. The whole article is full of rubbish- a bit like the streets of Venezuela really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.210 ( talk) 17:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
What is actually stated, if you cut and paste, is that 'Venezuelan soldiers loyal to Chávez...later stormed and retook the presidential palace". They were the Presidential Guard, and you can watch them do just this 34 minutes into John Pilger's 'The War on Democracy'. However, again according to the same film, Chavez was not freed from Miraflores, because he was not in Miraflores, but was helicoptered (a verb one doesn't get to use enough) in from wherever he had been taken by his kidnappers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.219.193 ( talk) 03:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Predictions for 2007 are outdated in 2009. BTW, did the predictions come true?
The leading business daily of Argentina, Ambito Financiero, predicted that Venezuela under Chavez in 2007 would have a "nationalized economy, out-of-control spending, government by decree, and perpetual re-election." [7] The motion which included the provision to allow indefinite presidential re-election was voted down in national referendum in 2007. The daily also compared Chavez to King Louis XIV of France, stating his 2007 inauguration would mark "a concentration of power without precedent in Venezuela." [8]
JRSP ( talk) 12:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it's worth noting how there has been a rise in anti-semitism in Venezuela since Chavez's rise to power, including government sponsorship. link. Also he frequently criticizes Israel and the US' support of Israel. Here is another article to back up his personal anti-semitism. Deeejazzy ( talk) 21:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that better sources would be needed. Jim Lobe has written an article about neo-con attacks on Chavez as an anti-semite http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=8390 which I think puts the issue in perspective. Also, the State Department definition is not very helpful. It distinguishes between "objective criticism of Israeli policies and anti-Semitism". Similarly, criticism of Chavez is not necessarily directed against Venezuelans. The Four Deuces ( talk) 23:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
C'mon! When a nation, such as Israel, carries out a program of ethnic cleansing, then comparisons to the Nazis seem reasonable. It can be argued that Israel's treatment of its Palestinian minority amounts to ethnic cleansing. It's funny; anti-Semitism is a disease of totalitarianism and the Right, yet, Rightists always scream "anti-Semitism" when Israel is criticised. The supporters of the far-Right junta of George W were very good at this. And it seems that this hasn't changed. 220.233.176.162 ( talk) 05:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum. Rd232 talk 16:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
a reliable WP:RS: Centro Simon Wiesenthal: "The Simon Wiesenthal Center strongly condemned antisemitc statements by the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez Frías, who had said that “the world has wealth for all, but some minorities, the descendants of the same people that crucified Christ, have taken over all the wealth of the world”. Chávez made this statements during a celebration of Christmas, last Dec. 24, at a rehabilitation center." -- 84.137.90.167 ( talk) 17:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
This article uses Venezuelanalysis.com extensively, which is a clear violation to NPOV and RS. Venezuelanalysis has received funding from the Chavez government, its founder (Martin Sanchez) is Chavez's Consul in Chicago and its editor (Gregory Wilpert) is married to Chavez's Consul in NY, ergo as independent as an official site can be. If it is to be used as a source its evident conflict of interests need be disclaimed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alekboyd ( talk • contribs) 15:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I repeat my question, Alek: Where in the article can you find a doubious statement sourced on venezuelanalisis? JRSP ( talk) 15:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems that those supporting the Venezuelan President in these pages have as much of a problem respecting Wikipedia:CIV principles as their iconic hero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.170.44 ( talk) 17:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)(in Spanish)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)