Talk:Israel-Venezuela relations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Portal:Israel
 Israel Portal
Israel-Venezuela relations is part of the WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Contents

[edit] Merge Proposal

Proposed merge: merge into Foreign policy of Hugo Chávez#Iseael

  • Agree with the merge proposal. Most (if not all) the contents of this article is already in Foreign policy of Hugo Chávez#Israel JRSP 11:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose and possibly rename — The topic is likely to grow considerably. It's a stub now, but I doubt it will stay that way for long, at the rate that Chávez is making headlines. Sandy 11:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I will be adding more info over the weekend. Republitarian 12:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree I guess that makes us all the usual suspects... Seriously why should this subject get mention? Is it really relevant at all? Israeli relations occuppy roughly 0.5% of current and past foreign policy, foreign policy with US (already exists) Cuba, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Bolivia, Peru, Mexico, Netherlands, Spain, France, Italy and Rusia are far more relevant. Considering most of the article is duplication of other articles (nothing new is here) It certainly needs to be merged.Flanker 15:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No, we're still missing several of the "usual suspects" as you call them; so far, we've got the predictable opposition from you and JRSP to any criticism of Chavez. "Is it really relevant at all?" Do you read all of the news, or only VenAnalysis? IMO, your comments above reflect a lack of appreciation for the relevance this topic has in current events, which goes beyond Chavez's antics in Colombia, Peru, Brazil and other places. Perhaps you're forgetting that he is stirring up the nuclear option? Or that, unlike his meddling in South America, this topic will get international press attention? Sandy 15:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
      • The Usual suspects includes me sandy so no reason to take offense, as for the "Nuclear option" sigh... What nuclear option? and please remember that while Wikipedia policies demand verification BUT in debate your argument has to be backed by good evidence. That means more than just and accusation. This article just adds to bias towards the recent, it was made specifically for one event and it will be relegated to that event, it also creates a new avenue for attack.Flanker 16:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreeas per JRSP.--K4zem 15:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Not sure as of yet what I think - slight tendency to oppose, but I will see how the article (and the actual situation) evolves and vote later. However, unless the article talks about the larger Venezuela-Israeli relations over a longer period, I would qualify it by changing the title a bit by adding something like "recent" or "in 2006" ... something like that. Anagnorisis 15:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, at least this is a sign of progress, which I haven't seen in months. The self-designated "usual subjects" are at least talking about it this time, rather than unilaterally reverting, deleting, and cleansing. If this article survives, we can look at using Summary Style in the other places. I'm not in a hurry to delete content from other articles, if this article isn't going to survive; I've already spent the better part of the last few months recovering cleansed referenced material from diffs and edit histories. Sandy 20:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree I see duplicate articles related to Chavez. I think we need to merge this into Foreign Policy and if something more develops we can reconsider. Spaceriqui 22:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. This article is becoming comprehensive, and as far as I can see, not all the content is covered in the parent article. Although I haven't checked every source individually, most statements seem to be references.--enano (Talk) 03:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree To introduce myself, I started and contributed extensively to the Israel-United States relations article and contributed a little to United States-Venezuela relations, so I was excited when I saw this article (yes, excited). However, this article and the US - VE article both are overwhelmed by Chavez. To improve U.S.-VE I put some non-Chavez info (and I'd like to do more in the future), but I don't see how that could be done with this article. This is an interesting article, but I feel Chavez dominates it to the point where it ought to be merged or renamed. There's a lot more discussion here, so I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes or bringing up something that was already settled. MorrisGregorian 19:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, In my opinion this article was created to attack Hugo Chavez and the ratio from critiscism to actual Venezuelan-Israeli relations shows that. Frankly it is the violation of WP:BLP that worries me not the topic deviation.Flanker 03:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the article has enough relevant information to be an article in its own light. If the info already exists in other articles, perhaps it needs to be trimmed/removed in those articles, and not this one, which will elaborate on the specific subject of Israel-Venezuela relations. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the article is long enough and related to a relevant controversy: what many, including myself, would characterize as Hugo Chavez's anti-Semitism. --Tjss(Talk) 02:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article is large enough on its own, and, more importantly, should be expanded to include foriegn policies of Venezualan governments that predate Hugo Chavez. -- Avi 18:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with previous comment; article should mention also relations prior to present time (pre-Chavez). For instance what were Venezuela's positions in previous conflicts? Anagnorisis 18:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Anagnorisis. --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Anagnorisis and Daniel575. --Ozzyprv 03:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Incomprehending oppose why is this proposal being made? Article too detailed? Too well referenced? Huh?? - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose good fleshed out article. important topic. JJ211219 05:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this article has a lot more to it than Hugo Chavez's attitude. Maybe a brief summary can be added in the Hugo Chavez article, and then a redirect to this article for more information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cbohorquezm (talk • contribs) 19:24, 24 August 2006 UTC.
  • Comment This article was brought to my attention when the user Republitariancontacted me, urging me to vote for the opposing side. Had I discovered it without his aid, I may have indeed voted for oppose, but after being encouraged by someone I do not know to do this, I will abstain, and let others decide the fate of the article. ViceroyInterus 18:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Although that's very reasonable of you, the poll is already tainted and can no longer accurately guage a consensus. -- WGee 07:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
A note to Viceroy: Republitarian registered his account on 10 August 2006, and in a classic example of the ill effects of WP:BITE, appears to have given up after only two weeks on Wiki. Granted, what he did may not have been the wisest thing to do, but he made good contributions for a new user, may not have realized how his posts would be viewed, and WP:AGF is in order, considering his newness. Further, even without the new votes, there is not/was not consensus to merge this article, so what Republitarian did is not very significant in terms of the merge outcome. Perhaps some editors are more upset at the fact that the Hugo Chávez articles now have a wider audience. Sandy 20:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree As per some of my comments, this article is mostly about Chavez's relationship with Judaism, rather than Venezuela's relationship with Israel. Mateo LeFou 18:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Covers a great deal of material that affects Venezuela's relations with Israel, and too big to be called a stub - well, unless Superflanker succeeds in deleting half the article on spurious WP:BLP grounds. Jayjg (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose per Avi. An image would make the article so much better. Tennis Dynamite 21:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain Because of Republitarian's actions, it is now impossible for this poll to accurately guage a consensus. Its overall result, but not the comments of individual users, should accordingly be disregarded. -- WGee 07:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolutely oppose. As both a jew and a Venezuelan, I honestly do not think these two articles should be merged at all. Chavez' attitude towards the Israeli government is mainly due to his sympathy for the anti-USA dictatorships of the world (like China, Vietnam) and some of these are in the Middle East (Syria, Lybia, Iran) which most are also OPEC members like Venezuela and also because quite a few high-profile members of his government are of arabic descent (Tarek William Saab, José Salamat Khan, Fahd El Gatrif Mizher, Imad Saab, Elías Halabi, among others) and most of them syrian and palestinian, hence the actions taken by him. But every shabbat I come back from my synagogue and walk from a mostly jewish quarter into downtown (where my apartment is) and there are several stores owned by arabs, and street vendors that support Chávez, and nobody has had a single offense against me for wearing a kippa on the streets. Well, just one drunkard who said "Hail Lebanon! remember that, boy" to me.

Apart from that, I don't think there is any need to merge the two articles, because one is about ALL the history of jews in Venezuela, and the relations of Venezuela and Israel. I think the recent facts should stay the same, in a different article. Also, it should remain in the article about Chavez' foreign policy because it is linked not just to Venezuela's OPEC allies but to his anti-american stance and support of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. --JewBask 02:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose I think it's a really good fleshed out article, if we move all of the Venezuelan relations articles to the Hugo Chavez foreign policy then that article will be really huge. Besides, relations with Israel before Chavez would have no place in Hugo Chavez foreign policy article.DamianFinol 15:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote stacking

Note: Republitarian has surreptitiously solicited oppose votes from Tjss, Avi, Anagnorisis, CrazyRussian, Daniel575, and JJ211219, thereby inducing an abnormal imbalance of opinion. The results of this survey should be interpreted accordingly. -- WGee 06:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Surreptitiously? By posting to their talk pages? I think you'd better review your own talk page — and some of your friends — before making that charge. Sandy 07:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Surrpetitiously: that is, by not placing a notice on this talk page, as he should do in good faith (see Wikipedia:Vote-stacking). The only other way to know that he solicited support for his position would be to view each commenter's talk page, as I was forced to do. And, in the future, do not use a logical fallacy as a red herring. -- WGee 07:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Vote stacking is not an actual policy. Until it becomes one I suggest you find a policy that prohibits me from contacting other users and urging them to vote. If you had bothered to contact me and raise your concerns, I might have stopped and asked somene higher up whether it was considered ok. Your lack of civility and failure to cite actual policy seriously wane on my patience and your credibility. Republitarian 15:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Spam specifically addresses situtations such as this.
"Canvassing (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting") is overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians on their talk pages, and it is controversial. However, it is agreed that disruptive canvassing, even if it seems to be within guidelines below, is never acceptable. On at least one occasion, a provocative attempt to stack an ongoing poll by cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that resulted in probation and eventual banning by the community. . . . Votestacking is sending mass talk messages out to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion and informing them of an upcoming vote, such as via a userbox or other user categorization."
Thus, your actions are frowned upon, if not outrightly prohibited, by Wikipedia guidelines. And you did not merely "urge them to vote", as you claim; you explictly solicited oppose votes, saying, "I could use some support in opposing merging Israel-Venezuela relations into (nothingness) Foreign policy of Hugo Chávez." Moreover, you said on my talk page, "Just to be fair, I went ahead and contacted all users who identify themselves as Venezuelan Wikipedians."[2] But, curiously enough, none of the people I have identified are Venezuelan (insofar as they explicitly state); rather, four out of six of them are Jewish, and one of them supports Kadima.
In any case, soliciting a certain demographic to vote, especially one that you know is inclined to vote oppose, will invariably lead to a bias in the poll and is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. In the future, for the sake of transperancy and honesty, I ask that you state at the poll's page that you have solicited votes.
-- WGee 18:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to assume good faith, and imagine that you didnt go back through my contributions to see who I contacted. If you had gone through my contributions, you would've seen I contacted every single user who identifies themself as a Venezuelan, all 13 of them, the only exceptions being users who already voted. Here are the diffs. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Republitarian 18:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Please read my statements properly before threatening "outside intervention". I said, "none of the people I have identified are Venezuelan (insofar as they explicitly state)". I'm sure you meant well, but soliciting the opinions of a particular demographic only serves to exacerbate the systematic bias at Wikipedia. If you still insist on doing this, however, the least you could is notify the participants in the poll on the poll's talk page. Anyway, the fact remains that you solicited oppose votes from Jewish or otherwise Isreal-supportive Wikipedians; then you dishonestly claimed that you merely "urged them to vote". -- WGee 18:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
WGee, please stop violating WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Labeling Republitarian's actions "dishonest" sounds like a personal attack. I suggest letting go of this discussion, since there was no consensus to merge the article even without the recent votes. And, considering what's on your talk page, I don't know why you are pursuing this line of reasoning anyway. Further, don't dress up your argument with claims of systemic bias, when the systemic bias in the Chavez articles consistently goes in favor of Chavez and the direction of your edits: if you are truly in favor of lowering systemic bias on Wiki, you should welcome balance in that bias. Sandy 19:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
After reading Republitarian message at User talk:Cbohorquezm "...I'm urging users to oppose the merge ..." this is really starting to look as vote stacking. I don't think this is a fair practice JRSP 19:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't try to misconstrue my comments into a personal attack; I am perfectly within my rights and duties to comment on Republitarian's actions. -- WGee 21:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
You can raise your objections in a civil way, as JRSP did, without accusations of dishonesty. Sandy 21:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wonderfull now we have been successfull in combining TWO highly controversial topics into one mega controversial one... The one asking for him to vote oppose was pretty bad I will say that. I have been contacted outside Wikipedia to vote on a subject and even there the fellow was honest enough to specifically state he was not revealing his vote (or voting) until the end in order not skew mine, now that is impressive.

The less this article in particular needs is heavily biased editors and that is why I clamor for a third party review.Flanker 23:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Similar messages were posted in Talk:Israel, Talk:Jerusalem,Talk:Tel Aviv,User talk:Alansohn,User talk:Yodamace1,User talk:Itzik18,User talk:Cockneyite,User talk:Yirmiyahou,User talk:Mdanziger,User talk:Jeremy12201986,User talk:Gregorykay,User talk:Rachack,User talk:Geshmakster JRSP 04:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Well that certainly makes it look worse.Flanker 17:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional material

Sandy 15:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

VenAnalysis: [16]. Sandy 15:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I found the article SF is looking for: I haven't had time to read it yet.
Perelman, Marc. Venezuela's Jews Defend Leftist President in Flap Over Remarks. Forward.com (January 13, 2006). Available here. Accessed 11 August 2006.
Sandy 20:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relation between this issue and Israel?

This issue is not related to subject unless an official statemant of Israel is provided:

The Simon Wiesenthal Center previously criticized Chávez after he compared Spain's Jose Maria Aznar to Hitler, and again when he commented that "his political opposition resembled the wandering Jew".[1] In late 2005, Rabbi Henri Sobel of Brazil, a World Jewish Congress leader, also accused Chávez of anti-Semitism.[1] The Weisenthal Center also criticized a December 2005 speech by Chávez as anti-Semitic.[2]

According to the Miami Herald, "It's not the first time Chávez has made comments deemed anti-Semitic. In 2005, he attacked 'some minorities, the descendants of the people who crucified Christ, [who] seized the riches of the world'." [3] Chávez stated that "[t]he world is for all of us, then, but it so happens that a minority, the descendants of the same ones that crucified Christ, the descendants of the same ones that kicked Bolívar out of here and also crucified him in their own way over there in Santa Marta, in Colombia. A minority has taken possession all of the wealth of the world."[4]

According to Venezuelan government sources and the liberal FAIR, the quote omitted the reference to Bolívar, stated that Chávez was referring to Jews, and denounced the remarks as antisemitic by way of his allusions to wealth.[5] According to an an article published at Forward.com, Venezuelan Jewish community leaders accused the Simon Wiesenthal Center of rushing to judgment with the anti-Semitic remarks, saying that Chávez's comments had been taken out of context, and that he was actually referring to "gentile business elites" or the "white oligarchy that has dominated the region since the colonial era".[1] The Weisenthal Center's representative in Latin America replied that Chávez's mention of Christ-killers was "ambiguous at best" and that the "decision to criticize Chávez had been taken after careful consideration".[1]

What is the relation between this issue and the State of Israel ? I mean, is there any official statement of Israel regarding this? As far as I know the Simon Wiesenthal Center is an NGO JRSP 02:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Similar concern: this is all really material about Chavez, not the Venezuelan people, not the attitudes of Venezuelans towards Jewish people, not the state of Israel, and not the long-standing relations that existed between Venezuela and Israel. The issue is Chavez. He does not appoint career foreign officers to diplomatic positions, and these stances are all 100% Hugo. Sandy 03:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
What was the official position of the State of Israel? JRSP 03:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More news

Republitarian, this article mentions issues that explain the concern about the article title, which Anagnorisis also mentioned. Chavez's actions and statements are not typical of all Venezuelans, Venezuela previously enjoyed good relations with Israel, and Jewish people were highly regarded in Venezuela, so unless you can focus on the longer term relations as well, the title may need adjustment, or this material may need to stay in a Chavez article. Sandy 03:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What has this to do with Israel relations. Is there any official statement of Israel about this? JRSP 03:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Not only that but it should avoid being all accusations, about non-descript people that falls into minor critiscism. If this article is about Israel-Venezuelan relations it has to remain as such and not include the jews, and eventually when it gets included in critiscism it should be made painfully obvious that he NEVER says jews (or infers jews) in a negative light, that a random individual infers it is against WP:BLP and should not be included.Flanker 17:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Another misinterpretation of BLP. Sandy 19:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Still looking for the news accounts of the net Jewish emigration from Venezuela after Chavez's election. Sandy 20:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this relevant to the article's subject? What is the relation between this and the State of Israel? JRSP 20:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
You've asked the question 3 times now, JRSP. We can read. Whether this information ends up in one article or two depends on what sources and other information Republitarian adds to it. Sandy 20:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ref cleanup

I will clean up the formatting on the references, so we can see what we've got to work with. I haven't yet checked all the references, but I saw VCrisis. I'm leaving a note for Republiatarian that VCrisis is not a reliable source: I'm pretty sure that same information is in one of the links I provided above, so rather than DELETING the information, the reference can be replaced. I'll look at the rest during the course of the day, and convert the refs. Sandy 13:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have cleaned up what I could of the refs, and find some of the sources used (ZNet, VHeadline) iffy. We need reliable primary sources on some of this content. I haven't had a chance yet to thoroughly review the article, but from what I could see while I was cleaning up refs, it seems to include some rehash of rumor about the 2002 coup, from somewhat dubious sources. Sandy 15:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The article does not present a single reference to a negative jewish comment

The anti-semitism labell has to be substantiated with evidence not just relentless critiscism as it stands it violates WP:BLP:

"The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics in case you represent a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article."

Surely you can find ONE anti-semetic quote? the only one yet was about the wandering jew (even the US department uses that) but that is a mythological character which devoids it of context, all this shows is that critics get lots of milage out of nothing.Flanker 14:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

SF, please stop with the misinterpretation and overinterpretation of WP:BLP. Give the rest of us some time to look at the work. There is nothing that violates WP:BLP, please do not start disruptive deletionist editing until we've all had a chance to review it. All I've had time to do so far is to clean up the refs, and I am not pleased with the quality of some of the references. Please, work on consensus, not deletionist disruptive editing based on overinterpretations and misinterpretations of BLP. Give us all a chance to discuss Republitarian's work. Thanks, Sandy 15:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Further, SF, please stop engaging in original research and opinion. The article reports what reliable sources say, as it should. It is not up to you to decide if the remarks are anti-semitic. Wiki reports what reliable sources say, and plenty of people have accused Chavez of anti-semitism. Sandy 15:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The anti-semitism labell has to be substantiated with evidence not just relentless critiscism as it stands it violates WP:BLP I've now reviewed the article. It has lots of problems, but IMO, this isn't the problem. You seem to overinterpret and misinterpret BLP. If you have refuting arguments, present them. BLP refers to *poorly-sourced* criticism. The criticism here is sourced. Yes, some of it is sourced to only one source, but that same info is available from other places, so that should be corrected. Sandy 17:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To be resolved

Starting a list:

[edit] Sources

  • Chávez now claims that the Secretary General of OPEC, Venezuelan Ali Rodriguez, warned Chávez over a month before the attempted coup d'état that Libya and Iraq planned to call for an oil embargo against the United States in retaliation for its support for Israel, and that the U.S. was going to try to replace Chávez with a ruler who would break the embargo before it could begin.[5]
    • I am troubled at using an extremist and biased source like Znet and Palast to source these rumors. The concept is poorly sourced, and I'm unclear on its encyclopedic value. Is there a better source, or other sources to corroborate this information? This is akin to Wayne Madsen claiming the US supported the coup, passing himself off as a "Navy insider" when he works for far-left publications and wasn't in the Navy at the time, information that was further by the leftist Guardian, in spite of ample evidence against. Znet is a biased source: are there other sources for this information? Sandy 16:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • According to a high-level military source, Isaac Pérez Recao, who participated in, and helped finance, the coup against Chávez, controlled a "right-wing extremist" group that was "well armed... under the operations command of Rear Adm. Carlos Molina Tamayo" who was put in charge of Carmona’s military ministry. Recao's group "was connected to a security company owned by former Mossad agents."[4] Marcelo Sarabia, Carmona's bodyguard, was linked to several security organizations, one of which was one run by Mossad.[4]
    • Similar problems here. This is one source, and spreading rumors not seen in mainstream media sources. The claim is that Recao financed the coup? We need a better source. Ditto for Carmona's body guard. Wiki can't be sourcing these kinds of speculative rumors to one source only. Are there other sources to colloborate any of this information? Sandy 16:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If any of this text stays in the article, it needs to be made much more clear exactly what claims are being made by whom, because it is all highly speculative. Sandy 16:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Ultimas Noticias accused Mossad of complicity in the coup,[citation needed] and Venezolana de Television claimed that Carmona was "going to rule together with the Jews".[1]
    • Where is this Ultimas Noticias article? I can't find it? Sandy 16:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Found. Sandy 05:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Deputy Angel Landaeta, from the left-wing Fifth Republic Movement (MVR) founded by Chávez, accused Pedro Carmona in the political committee of the National Assembly on May 2, of having intended a "Sharon operation," in order to do "what the Jews are doing in Palestine".[1]
    • Where is the Landaeta statement? I can't find it either? Perhaps the wrong reference was used for these statements ? Sandy 16:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Found Sandy 05:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The Stephen Roth Institute report is used to substantiate fourteen statements. This is too much emphasis on one source: the sources need to be broadened to include other sources, such as Venezuelan newspapers, the Miami Herald, the BBC, etc. There is too much reliance on one source, and many of these events were documented in other places. Sandy 16:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
We must be careful with the SR institute. All HR organizations tend to be biased for a very important reason: HR issues often require urgent action and you don't have time to verify things, pre-emptive action is a better choice. Therefore no matter if a significant proportion of claims turn out to be unverified, (this also applies to AI, HRW, etc) they have to act quickly, no time for verification, you need to be biased in favor of the potential victim/s of HR violations. For this reason, you can't just dump their claims into an encyclopedic work, additional verification is needed for their claims JRSP 17:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't necessarily agree with everything you said above, but I do agree that the sources need to be expanded. Much of what the SRI says can be cited to other sources, and that should be done. Entire sections shouldn't be cited to one source. Having said that, we all know most of this was reported in the Venezuelan press, so it would show good faith if others helped in the effort. Sandy 17:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
In any case, the claims need attribution they cannot be presented as factual truths JRSP 17:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but I believe (not sure?) that Republiatrian is fairly new to Wiki, and might not understand what we mean by that. I didn't want to make any actual content changes until others have had a chance to look over everything. All of the changes I did today amount to refs, wikis, grammar - small stuff - without changing any actual content. Perhaps we can fix that a bit later ?? Or do you think it needs to be addressed urgently? I didn't want to move too fast, until others have had a chance to review. Sandy 17:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, wait for more opinions JRSP 17:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that's a helpful editing approach :-) Here is an article from today's El Universal which may help tie it all together: I haven't read it yet. The difficult relationship with Israel Sandy 17:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

No response all day: unless someone disagrees, I'll start doing some of the attribution, and try to re-source some of the statements, so we can see where we are tomorrow ??? Sandy 00:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Since we now have multiple sources corroborating the Stephen Roth info, I feel satisfied that the article no longer relies too heavily on one source. Sandy 21:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

  • The Jewish population in Venezuela, which peaked at 45,000, is now below 15,000 as a result of state-sponsored and independent religious persecution.[1] More than half of the Jewish population in Venezuela left between 2000 and 2006.[2]
  • In 1939 the steamboats Koenigstein and Caribia left Nazi Germany and docked in Venezuela. One Jewish refugee commented in the newspaper La Esfera, "Imagine our joy at being free and far from a land in which everything threatened us with death. It is such a holy occurrence given that we were expelled from Germany and you have embraced us."[2]
  • Venezuela voted in favor of Israeli membership in the United Nations on November 27, 1947 and established diplomatic ties. During the Six-Day War many Venezuelan Jews went to Israel to fight for independence.[3]
    • The lead is supposed to briefly summarize the article. This info isn't in the article, it is only in the lead, so that should be fixed.
    • The presentation of the information also seems out of order. Perhaps present the second and third paragraphs should be first (history before current)? Sandy 16:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Sandy 05:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions and wikilinks

  • 25 members of the Cuerpo de Investigaciones Cientificas, Penales y Criminalisticas (CICPC) CICPC needs to be defined in English, or wikilinked if it exists on Wiki. Sandy 16:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to "police". Sandy 05:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coup

  • On April 11, 2002, forces within the Venezuelan government briefly overthrew President Chávez and installed businessman and Venezuelan Federation of Chambers of Commerce (Fedecámaras) president Pedro Carmona, as interim President for 47 hours.
    • "Forces within the Venezuelan government," with that Wikilinked to Politics of Venezuela? There is enough controversy surrounding the "coup"; we should stick to basics here. "Chávez was briefly overthrown in a coup and Carmona was installed," or something brief to that effect. There are even differing accounts on the 47 hours, so the description here should be as brief as possible, referring to the main article, where details are hashed out. Sandy 16:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Shortened. Sandy 06:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General

Once all the questions about sources are cleared up, I am not convinced this article is titled correctly. It still doesn't discuss the long-standing good relationships that existed between Venezuela and Israel. The current anti-semitism trend should be criticism of Hugo Chavez, and the current foreign policy in support of Iran, opposition to Israel and the US, again, is Chavez foreign policy, not long-standing Venezuelan policy. Unless this article can clearly cover long-standing relationships between Israel and Venezuela, then I think the content will need to be either merged elsewhere, or renamed. It is currently about accusations of Chavez's anti-semitism and Chavez's foreign policy, and should not reflect on longer-term policies of the country or people of Venezuela. Lots of work to be done still on this article, including a new discussion of how to title it and where the information should go. That's all from me for now. Sandy 17:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Historical ties did not start in 1939. One of my great-grandfathers was Jew and he came to Venezuela in the XIX century JRSP 03:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Yep. [17] I'll see what's in the text: maybe he was referring to something else. ?? Sandy 03:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I checked the text: he didn't say ties started in 1939. But something earlier should be included. The problem is that a vitual library isn't a great source. Sandy 03:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I expanded based on the Jewish Virtual Library, in case others want to have a look or change anything. I'm not thrilled to use an online library as a resource, so I tried to stay away from using any controversial commentary. Sandy 21:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iran

Iran is not an Arab country, the heading must be fixed JRSP 03:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Any ideas? Sandy 03:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Middle-east maybe? --enano (Talk) 03:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I think Middle-east is fine JRSP 03:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I read the text, and since it refers to the Arab League, instead of renaming it, I just moved Iran to its own section, not under Arab. Is that Ok with everyone? Sandy 04:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
As long as Iran is not referred to as an Arab country, I see no problem. --enano (Talk) 05:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can't find source

Found them all, added them back in. Sandy 05:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't find these statements, so I'm removing them to here and leaving a message to Republitarian. He must have used the wrong ref.

Ultimas Noticias accused Mossad of complicity in the coup,[citation needed] and Venezolana de Television claimed that Carmona was "going to rule together with the Jews".[6] [verification needed]
Deputy Angel Landaeta, from the left-wing Fifth Republic Movement (MVR) founded by Chávez, accused Pedro Carmona in the political committee of the National Assembly on May 2, of having intended a "Sharon operation," in order to do "what the Jews are doing in Palestine".[6]

Sandy 03:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't verify these sources either: left the text in, and tagged it.

Anti-Israel, Chávez supporters demonstrated on June 30, wearing t-shirts with the inscriptions "Jerusalem will be ours" and "Israel out, solidarity with the Palestinian cause."[citation needed]
When Ultimas Noticias interviewed Libyan-Venezuelan politician and Fifth Republican Movement leader Tarek William Saab and Franklin González, director of the School of International Studies at the Universidad Central de Venezuela, both bemoaned that the United Nations had disappointed Palestinians, and that "the roots of the conflict lay in the creation of the State of Israel, in 1947." [citation needed]
On April 2, Venezuelan-American journalist Ted Cordova-Claure, writing for Tal Cual, equated Sharon with Adolf Hitler. On April 26, Frontera journalist Alfredo Hernandez Torres justified suicide bomb attacks against Israel, saying that "Sharon displays more hate than the Nazis had for the Jews." Torres called Sharon a "beast" and said that Israel engaged in "genocide in Jenin... which would have embarrassed even insensitive Hitler."[citation needed]
Both El Universal and El Nacional have accused Israel of genocide, with El Nacional stating Israeli Jews "are today strangulating, deporting, placing under closure and killing the Palestinian people with the same enthusiasm as that of their persecutors, the Nazis." [citation needed]

I'll go back in the diffs and see if it was my mistake when converting the refs. Sandy 04:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No, not my mistake: Republitarian may have just typed the wrong source. [18]. Sandy 04:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That's as far as I can get, without having the source for the content above. I can't continue with attributing sources, since I don't have them, but I'm relieved to find that all the content isn't referenced to the same (Stephen Roth) source. Sandy 05:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coup section

The entire section is sourced to World Press and Greg Palast -- not exactly good sources. Is there anything there that rings true to anything that was printed in Venezuelan press, and/or can we find any other sources for any of that? The whole thing reads like unencyclopedic rumor. Any ideas? (Why does this talk page have no Table of Contents?) 03:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Venezuela Emerging as Potential Hub of Terrorism"

See the left column here. this should be noted. Republitarian 15:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Shimon Peres visits Venezuela's Caldera. [19] and 2005 IRF report on Venezuela[20] Republitarian 19:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm finished adding this info, if anyone wants to change anything. Sandy 21:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Another 2 links: 1 and 2. Republitarian 15:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It would be better to find the same information from better sources. Vheadline, VenAnalysis, and VCrisis are all best avoided. The entire coup section here has the same problem; the sources are dubious, and unless it can be better sourced, that section is rumor. Sandy 15:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random Urdaneta insertion

Can anyone figure out why this was inserted midstream, and what needs to be done with it ?? [21] Sandy 20:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Check the audio, Urdaneta says "Israeli commandos" (to kill Chávez) JRSP 20:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This was Oct 25 2004, Danilo Anderson's murder was Nov 18. This might explain why they took seriously the anonymous call about weapons in the Hebraica School. The raid was on Nov 29 JRSP 20:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll work on that next; still trying to catch up. Sandy 20:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
JRSP, I'm still catching up, have to look at the other guilt by association ... can you give me Urdaneta's exact words, and suggested wording that I can work that in to the school part ? If I'm understanding correctly what I read here (without listening to the audio), we can't say that may be why they took the call seriously (since that would be speculation and original research on our part), but we can say what Urdaneta said, and let the reader decide.  ?? Sandy 21:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed it is also on the text: "la orden tiene que venir de dentro de las Fuerzas Armadas, de empresarios que no quieren venderle su empresa a unos hampones, y que tienen el dinero suficiente para traerse un comando israelí, como Dios manda" "the order has to come from within the armed forces, from bussinesspeople that do not want to sell their bussiness to thugs and that have enough money to bring an Israeli commando, as God commands" JRSP 21:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
So, we can say that in Urdaneta's call for the assassination of Chavez, he implied that an Israeli commando would do the task ? Sandy 21:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggested text:

According to the Venezuelan Government, notable Venezuelan actor, Orlando Urdaneta, living in exile in Miami, called for the assassination of Chávez in October 2004. The Government says he stated, "the order has to come from within the armed forces, from business people ... that have enough money to bring an Israeli commando, God willing."[7]

Problem: Why does the US State Dept say he was referring to Danilo, rather than Chavez? Do I have to listen to full audio (blech!) ??

According to the U.S. State Department, in November 2004, after prosecutor Danilo Anderson was assassinated, "the Government used satirical comments made by journalist Orlando Urdaneta on a U.S. television program to allude to possible Israeli participation in Anderson's killing." The Israeli Embassy denied any Israeli involvement, cautioning that the Government representations were misleading.[13]

Sandy 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] F-16s

I confess. I don't get it. I'm not sure what this section is trying to say, or how it's related to the article topic. Republitarian's edit summary says, "the China deal did not motivate the State Department's actions towards the Venezuela F16 deal", but the section reads as if that were the case. I'm not sure what point is being made, or how it fits into the big picture. Help, Sandy 20:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The article was trying to establish a history of Israeli weapons sales to foreign countries that had upset the U.S. The USG prevented the sales to Chávez because the U.S. doesnt like him. Noting the China deal is important because it shows that the Israelis werent suddenly defying their largest source of weapons for political reasons. They have a history of controversial military deals. Republitarian 22:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you find a way to fix that section so that context is more clear, remembering that you have to stick to what the sources say, avoiding original research? (That is, we can't "connect the dots", we can only report what the sources say.) Sandy 22:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guilt by association

This part reads very much as guilt by association : "Chávez's longtime friend, the late Argentian writer and Holocaust denier Norberto Ceresole, calls the Jews of Venezuela the greatest threat to Chavismo in his Caudillo, Ejército, Pueblo (Leader, Army, People)." JRSP 20:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Saw that, need to read entire report to see how to fix it, or eliminate it. Trying to get to that ... Sandy 20:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I re-worded to exact quote, where the second portion is more clearly attributed to Ceresole, not to Chavez, and attributed it specifically to Halvorssen. Have a look. Sandy 21:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Check also the previous paragraph. I think that the Wandering Jews were translated as "Jewish citizens". JRSP 21:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I think I see the problem. It looks like Thor Halvorssen translated it to Jewish citizens, while the US State Dept may have stuck with Wandering Jews. I've lost track: what were Chavez's exact words again? Halvorssen's exact text said Jewish citizens: going to look at State Dept. We can change to State Dept direct quote, and bypass Halvorssen, if that is better. Sandy 21:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are the two statements:

State Dept: A few days after his electoral victory, President Chavez gave a speech in which he compared the opposition to "wandering Jews."

Halvorssen: The report documents how openly anti-Semitic the Venezuelan government now is. Besides the raid on the Jewish school, it noted that "President Chavez cautioned citizens against following the lead of Jewish citizens in the effort to overturn his referendum victory. Anti-Semitic leaflets also were available to the public in an Interior and Justice Ministry office waiting room."

I've lost track of where to find Chavez's exact quote in Spanish, but it sounds like the two quotes are referring to two different instances (?). Sandy 22:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Halvorssen seems too biased. Regarding this "Wandering Jew" issue I think Chávez should invoke Hanlon's razor :-) JRSP 22:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Wandering Jew, not Jewish citizens, should be used. Republitarian 22:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be the original quote

Presidente Chávez: [...] Esta revolución, en contra de lo que algunos todavía siguen pregonando por ahí, bueno, como judíos errantes, ya parecen, algunos se me parecen. ¿Te acuerdas del judío errante, Ramón?

Ramón Carrizales: Risa.

Presidente Chávez: ¿A ti nunca te salió el judío errante por allá por los llanos de allá del Guárico?

I can translate if you want but he's basically talking about a ghost story [[22]] JRSP 22:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds anti-Semitic to me :-) OK, I *think* I fixed it, but I'm dizzy of this article now. Back to trying to solve the List of Presidents dilemma :-) Republitarian, I hope you can run through the entire thing now, and see if it hangs together, flows well, has copy edit issues, etc. Sandy 22:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three days

We built this article together in 3 days: we tried to keep it balanced and well-sourced by working together. Now will Flanker come along and put an unbalanced tag on it ? Sandy 22:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

How did I guess. Sandy 21:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thor Halvorssen

I was trying to find some information on Thor Halvorssen and I found this article [23]. Among other things he uses expresions such as "Chávez, a radical Marxist", "He terrorizes the opposition with his militia, the Circulos Bolivarianos". The reference also says that "Thor Halvorssen is a human-rights activist who served as a political advisor and consultant in two Venezuelan presidential elections". After this and his changing of "Wandering Jews" to "Jew Citizens" in the DoS report, I have serious doubts about his opinions. JRSP 02:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Check out this [24]. Something's fishy... JRSP 03:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Plenty of other sources say the same things about Chavez (are you saying he's *not* a radical Marxist?), and the content is cited to multiple sources reporting the same things. The BBC reported the same about Bolivarian Circles. I don't think we can say he "changed" Wandering Jews, since I don't see "Wandering Jews" in the translation. Fishy? From a series of articles which quote Znet, ZMag, VenAnalysis, and Weisbrot and every form of radical left, Marxist, and socialist source? If you cleansed the articles of everything sourced to Weisbrot, VenAnalysis, and CEPR, there's not much left to be said about Chavez. Sandy 03:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Check the other link, Sandy, it is El Nacional JRSP 03:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I did, nothing relevant: we're talking about Venezuela where you're guilty until proven innocent, which is rarely done. Sandy 03:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a good one: Pat Robertson was "misinterpreted" [25] JRSP 04:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Robertson said that, not Halvorssen. Sandy 04:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Allright, I found the full story on the Halvorssen, published in the Wall Street Journal. Can you locate a copy of:

  • Halvorssen, Thor. The Americas: The price of vigilance in Venezuela's banking community. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Mar 4, 1994. pg. A9

Sick. Exactly why some people were smart enough to get out of Venezuela in the midst of the banking coruption. The incident even involved Amnesty International. No wonder he works in defense of human rights. Sandy 04:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Accordingly to source Halvorssen said "They basically have no standing to criticize anyone who made remarks that like -- you know, that were misinterpreted like the ones you [Robertson] made". JRSP 04:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
And? That's how a commentator gets interviewee talking. You don't call the person you're interviewing a liar and an idiot unless you're Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter. Can you locate the Wall Street Journal article? If you survived the 90s banking corruption, it should give you an abiding respect for him. Sandy 04:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Thor Halvorssen Mendoza has family ties with powerful Venezuelan economical groups and with several oposition members also, for instance, he's a cousin of the mayor of Chacao, Leopoldo López. At least one of the signers of the Carmona Decree in the family tree [26] JRSP
And ? If you want to understand Halvorssen, I highly reccommend getting hold of the WSJ article I mentioned above, so you can see what this "establishment" you want to tie him to did to him because he fought against corruption and injustice. I have never read a story that rang more true of the Venezuelan banking scandal than the account of happened to Halvorssen. The connection you want to make isn't working: read the article. Sandy 14:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Halvorssen Mendoza appears to have joined an "advocacy group" per request of Carlos Ortega and Carlos Férnandez, leaders of the 2002 strike/lockout [27]. This is too much, his opinions are clearly biased and must be removed from the article JRSP 17:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misinterpretation of BLP

User:SuperFlanker has erased most of the article, claiming WP:BLP. This is a misinterpretation of BLP. The article is very well sourced. Since Flanker has done this many times before, I suggest that we need admin intervention, beyond mediation. 02:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC) (fixing sig Sandy 03:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Removed all jewish references

This is an article of Israeli relations and they do not equal jewish, plus it violated WP:BLP since it was ALL critiscism and it clearly states "and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material." Given that the article was ALL critiscism (as in opinion) it was removed aggressively. Also I don't know why the relations with Arab states is relevant either. Frankly it devolved into what I thought it would, Chavez is anti-semite because a lot of people think he is.Flanker 02:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not a violation of WP:BLP: everything in this article is very well sourced. You have been notified before, on many other pages, about your misinterpretation, misunderstanding and misapplication of BLP. Your reverts are subject to 3RR, because this article does not violate BLP, so don't engage in a revert war. If you don't understand the article, feel free to discuss your edits first on the talk page. Sandy 02:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe well sourced (I have some doubts about this) but not related to subject JRSP 02:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
1. What is not well-sourced? and,
2. Why do you think it's not related to the topic?
Both you and Flanker have a past record of believing you can cleanse articles of anything negative by claiming BLP. BLP doesn't apply here, so please explain your deletions and discuss them on the talk page. Sandy 02:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, JRSP, please label your reverts in edit summaries, as you are subject to 3RR here, and reverting an article without labeling it as such can be viewed as a deceptive editing practice. Whenever you revert an article it is customary to indicate so in the edit summary. Thanks, Sandy 02:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I already stated why it is subject to WP:BLP and it has nothing to do with sources (I haven't checked them either) but with this and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. This article exists to accuse Chavez of anti-semitism to say that it overwhelms it is an understatment. Just because the ADL considers anti-Israel to be anti-jew does not mean it is logical or it belongs in article about Venezuela Israel. Flanker 05:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm just letting you know that it is not a BLP violation. Don't say you weren't warned if you try to claim exemption from 3RR. You have a content dispute here, plain and simple, and you long ago stopped working on a consensual basis towards negotiating content. It seems that, after the revert, some of you decided Wiki editing was not via consensus, rather group bullying. Where were you when we were all working together on this article? What is missing that you want included? Why don't YOU help build the history of the good relations that existed with Israel prior to Chavez? There is much that could be said on that score. Or, do you want us to argue that the sky is green, because you don't like the fact that Chavez has given no answer to the anti-semitism claims, and has damaged relations with Israel? The facts are reported, based on reliable sources. If you have something to add for balance, do it. This is not a BLP violation. Sandy 05:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Flanker, sorry, but those arguments are ridiculous. First of all, I don't think WP:BLP even applies here, this is not a biographical article, this is about relations between Israel and Venezuela. In any case, considering that Chávez has made antisemitic comments, it's stupid to think that the action made under his government regarding Israel are not influenced by his antisemitic beliefs. Sorry if I'm rude Flanker, but it seems that you're just looking for bare excuses to try to remove any comment that may discredit Chávez' government, even if it's well referenced, just by using technicalities like that anti-Jewish/anti-Israeli argument. Try to be objective, you know that's not enough to remove whole sections of an article. --enano (Talk) 06:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not feel insulted, frankly I have handled the subject with the most level head posible, the problem is that other editors have not. Recent events while they could be interpreted whitewashing it is following what Jimbo Wales described of using wikipedia to attack individuals. I see no critiscism of George Bush article , or US south africa relations dedicated to calling Bush a racist with tons of african-american leaders clearly having done so. The double standard is made palpatable.Flanker 03:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
And yet, it doesn't occur to you that the Chavez artilces should have no criticism section either, just as Bush's doesn't. The Criticism sections are misnamed, POV, and the reason the Chavez articles are POV. Chavez's article should be balanced, that is, all views should be woven into the text, not exorcised and relegated to a "criticism" section, which is every bit as relevant as the rest of the article. The problem with your comparison to Bush is that it is the Chavez articles that are wrong, because you refuse to allow all sides of the story to be incorporated, and have forced viewpoints unfavorable to Chavez to be exorcised, and relegated so small sections in the articles, labeled as "criticism" when the content should be part of the text, in context, balanced. Sandy 14:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, sandy and enano I think WP:BLP ought to apply to some degree as long as your *first sentence -- which I think ought to contain a quick encapsulation of the point of the article, says "Israel-Venezuela relations have soured under the Presidency of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Israel". This points a finger squarely at two living persons.
This is a touchy subject -- please know that I'm not exactly a chavez fan. Sentence two says a decline in the Jewish population results from "state-sponsored and independent religious persecution". Which is -- if I've got my English right -- a long way of saying "religious persecution". The introduction of the loaded "state-sponsored" serves only to incriminate the aforementioned President, and get on the long road toward associations with the Holocaust (sure enough, we get there in section 6).
Sentence three: three papers report Jewish emigration "during the Chávez administration." I see you're trying to bullettproof this with three citations' worth of Kevlar; that's cute. Problem is that the sentence is just a plain old fact and only needs a simple footnote, with one source. You do this over-citing in order to compensate for negativity throughout the article.
This article in fact has its unspoken subject "how the antisemitic Hugo Chavez messed up Israel-Venezuala relations". Here's a thought experiment (that I shouldn't do, since I don't know enough of this history): how would a plain ol' boring article about Israel-Ven. relations start -- say, if Chavez didn't exist at all?
"Historically, relations between Venezuela and Israel have been tight/loose/distant/whatever, as they are both significant players in the world energy markets and have a strong mutual ally in Sweden/Kazakhstan/whatever." See the difference? It's a quick description of relations, between *countries, without reference to personalities or policies. Actually, I'd take your section 1 "1 Historical Venezuelan-Jewish ties" and make that the whole article. Except that all the people you mention are from Spain, North Africa, and Eastern Europe. Not Israel. Whoops.
The rest is basically current events; wikinews type stuff; a whole *section devoted to a dozen accusations that Chavez is Antisemitic; for good measure, another section on "Anti-Semitism reports"; and, my favorite, the section "Iran" which consists of pro-Iran quotes by Chavez, and which has obviously forgotten that this is not the Venezuela-Iran relations article.
...the more I think about it, this smells like a CSD. But I don't know the policies well enough to say for sure.
Mateo LeFou 19:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The fact that there are so many accusations against Chávez keeps getting criticized, but it's not like there's a whole bunch of Israeli or Jewish leaders coming out and saying "hey, this guy loves the Jews." If there were such quotes they would be included. I have repeatedly stated that if users are unhappy with the article then they are welcome to go out and find sourced content that supports the opposing view. The problem is, the opposing view, namely that Chávez has either maintained or improved ties with Israel and/or Venezuelan Jews, is virtually nonexistent. Respectfully, Republitarian 01:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
According to WP:BLP it is innacurate if anything this is an AfD. perhaps a peer review, or mediation is in order.Flanker 15:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Republitarian, including "the opposing view" is *not they key to objectivity. That is the he-said-she-said approach to discourse prevalent in talk shows, etc. Most of this article belongs in a separate "Antisemtism in Venezuela" article. I could support an AfD, because it seems Israel is simply not avery important country in Venezuelan foreign policy. Suppose there were an article on Italy-Africa relations that mostly discussed accusations of discrimination against people of color under Napolitano. Would that make sense?
Yes, to me it would make sense having such article about Italy-Africa relations. Let us know when you start it. Good luck. Anagnorisis 18:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The way objectivity is approached (if never perfectly attained) is by 1) making sure the topic is important; 2) staying strictly on that topic; 3) carefully selecting which facts are important and verifying them. This article fails on all three. I'm sure there have to be guidelines on this: filling up an article with quotes and citations does not give it credibility. Mateo LeFou 15:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
And how do we make sure the topic is important? Are you saying that the most than the other more 1 million articles in Wikipedia actually are important and this one is not? LOL! Good luck. Anagnorisis 18:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm saying there are 243 countries in the world. It would take 60,000 articles to cover each country's relations with each other one. You have to be selective. Portugal-Angola relations are important; Indonesia-Belize relations probably aren't. Not because they're small but because they don't know each other that well.
hehe.. just read that again and it made me laugh 'cause Indonesia is ginormous.Mateo LeFou 23:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Articles of more important to either Israel or Venezuela than this that do not exist: From Venezuela's side: Colombia, Brazil, Guyana, UK, Spain, Cuba, Mexico, Bolivia, Argentina, Chile,Italy, Iran, Iraq, (General Opec), China, Rusia, EU, Israel. Why does this need to exist when it really belongs in Foreign Policy of Hugo Chavez is beyond me.Flanker 01:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is not a BLP violation

Unless there exists a living person by the name of Israel-Venezuela relations, in which case he or she has much greater problems than this article Image:smile.gif -- Avi 18:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume you're joking, If so, hehe. If not: the title of the article is irrelevant. If I write an article full of negative material about Cher I'm subject to BLP. I can call my article "The Psychology of middle aged pop singers" or "How to Kill a Rat with an Oboe" and I'm subject to BLP
The BLP policy applies for all assersions on living persons anywhere in the wikipedia, it is not limited to bios. In fact, it even applies to talk pages JRSP 22:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

I, too, am troubled by the opening sentence. Venezuela's past good relations with Israel and the Jewish people are neglected. I've been to the library, and am still trying to find sources for a broader discussion of historical context. I've found some, have more work to do on sources, and will work on expanding later today (hopefully), if I can nail down reliable sources. Through all of my searches, I have been unable to uncover a single denial from Chávez of the anti-Semitism charges. But this article needs to take greater care to not paint all of Venezuela, and its history, with the broad brush of the current politics. Sandy 19:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Content from here may better balance the lead, which I agree, utterly sucks. Republitarian 19:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm working on it. Give me a few hours. And, I haven't had time to address it yet, but I've noticed that Mateo is attributing words to me that weren't written by me :-)) Ah, the joys of Wiki. Sandy 20:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
An honest mistake, I assure you and I apologize Mateo LeFou 23:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Through all of my searches, I have been unable to uncover a single denial from Chávez of the anti-Semitism charges Did you try searching "chavez anti-semitism denial" or anything like that? I did: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3200616,00.html Mateo LeFou 00:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was going to ask, "how did you do that", but I think I've figured it out — after exhausting all reliable sources, I see that Yahoo returns that source. I never use Yahoo, because they don't tend to return reliable sources. I found nothing on Google News, Google, my public library, or among all of the usual news sources. Can anyone clarify who is ynetnews, as I don't usually use obscure news sources: is that a reliable source? Since I've never heard of it, I'd rather find the same content from a well-known source (maybe someone can use the Ynet content as a starting place for searching the Spanish-language media).
I appreciate the apology for the honest mistake, and suggest that you should be less hasty in claiming neutrality while jumping to biased conclusions.
I'm going to attempt to add more history and fix the lead, which I didn't write, but the content available to work with is quite thin, and the BLP deletionists force text to stick closely to the exact wording in the sources.
I am also troubled at the wide range of Jewish population estimates in Venezuela, but haven't yet figured out how to tackle that text: the population has dropped a lot according to all reliable sources, but from what and to what seems to vary across sources. Sandy 01:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
No offense Sandy but you know where to always look: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1870 It has its own search engine as well.Flanker 02:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Your sarcasm is noted, but I don't misallocate my time in those kinds of highly-biased sources, Flanker, and suggest you might want to branch out and read other sources. Sandy 02:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's the original speech in Spanish [28] JRSP 02:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
JRSP, is there any chance you might be able to search El Universal? Sandy 02:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, was working on text and just saw these comments. Republitarian, I moved your text, as you were using it to refute the recent charges, when it was about the earlier (Dec 2005) incident. Also, VenAnalysis is a highly biased source, and not the best source to use. I haven't yet had a chance to look at JRSP's link above, but the best thing to do here would be to find the same quote in El Universal's English-language section. I'll look for that as soon as I can (unless someone else can find it first -- quoting VenAnalysis makes the quote suspect). I was trying to fix the F-16 deal, which really wasn't clearly saying what it was trying to say about previous good relations. I re-arranged the text to try to bring that more clearly forward. Sandy 02:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know Sandy but I think all these unfounded allegations are actually trivializing the fight against anti-semitism. Fact is that I see lots of Jews every Friday evening walking to their sinagogues and nobody messes with them. It really worries me this JTA report[29] saying the mosque is "one sign of the increase in ties between Venezuela and Arab nations" but failing to notice that it was built at least 10 years before Chávez. They should only mention that the mosque and the great sinagogue are very close together and there has never been a single incident between Jews and Muslims. My personal opinion is that the fight against racism and discrimination is too important to be misused as a mere political tool JRSP 03:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. The (Mosque aspect) is troubling, and it fails to take into account the increase in mosque-building everywhere (not just Venezuela). I wasn't planning to add that, for the same reason you mention. But, according to some of this literature, there have been some encounters. Having just found this JTA literature, I'm running into a lot of overlap of sources, and finding so much to get through. There are some clear messages in all of these articles that the Venezuelan Jewish have tried to steer clear of charges of anti-semitism, and the implication is made several times that they want to "lay low" so as not to bring trouble upon themselves. Don't think that can be worked in, too thinly-veiled. I still have to fix the lead. It's easier to get the little stuff out of the way first (the school raid, etc.) I don't like to take articles out of use to work on them, but I'm still trying to get to that part. The article still needs to be restructured to bring historical good ties to the fore: that is, the F-16 deal still isn't in the right place in the article structure, but I'll fix that when I add new text. Maybe after I've added the new text, we can look at your concern, so we don't all get crossed up working on the article at the same time ??? Sandy 03:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Population estimates and emigration

In a clear violation of WP:AGF, Mateo said:

Sentence three: three papers report Jewish emigration "during the Chávez administration." I see you're trying to bullettproof this with three citations' worth of Kevlar; that's cute. Problem is that the sentence is just a plain old fact and only needs a simple footnote, with one source. You do this over-citing in order to compensate for negativity throughout the article.

Sarcasm and violation of good faith aside, the problem here is how to clearly establish that the emigration has been substantial, when none of the peak and low numbers throughout all of these sources agree. On the first pass, I had included the word "approximately", but another editor deleted that, and it had to be dealt with somehow. None of the numbers in the sources agree, but all of them indicate significant emigration. I add "approximate", someone takes it out, I add multiple sources, Mateo calls it "cute" in a clear attack and violation of AGF. Mateo calls what is anything but a simple fact, "a plain old fact that only needs a simple footnote, with one source." OK, which source, which numbers do we use, since he thinks it's so simple? (This is like the people objecting over the footnote to Chavez being President number 53, which is anything but simple.) Any suggestions for how to deal with the emigration number problem? Sandy 04:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a suggestion, sorry. Sandy, I need to make peace with you and I have a couple of pieces in the pipe that will (hopefully) help me do that. This note is just to say that I appreciate your considerable time spent in wikipedia. I'm working on AGF and other things, but with hot potatoes like this it gets hairy. Mateo LeFou 05:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Mateo. That's all for me for today :-) I did the best I could, by moving the actual numbers out of the lead. Be well, Sandy 06:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

In a clear violation of WP:AGF, Mateo said... Sandy, I think you owe me an apology. It is incredible to me that you preach AGF having made all of the following statements in the past 3 days.

WGee (in concert with another uninvolved editor) ... reverted six months' worth of consensual work on the article (producing a perhaps intended side effect of chasing off most of the Venezuelan editors)
Any negative content about Chávez ... is quickly challenged by the WP:BLP deletionists.
the BLP deletionists use as their criteria the Edit Find button: if it's not there, they revert. Sticking to the sourced text has become the only editing allowed by the article owners.
Since his revert resulted in a very unbalanced pro-Chávez article, he gained some friends while completely chasing off all the other Venezuelan editors, and ever since, it's been editing by bullying
Welcome to the world according to Flanker. He "owns" the facts, and only his version is fact
What he calls "fact" is always his own opinion or one-sided, biased Chávez content
editing by bullying, rather than consensus, relegated anything negative about Chavez to a secondary place in the article

I think you know there are many more such comments. One that I can't find now said something along the lines of "if one misreading of policy doesn't let them cleanse the Chavez articles, they try another and another and another"

I had an AGF slip and apologized for it. You seem to believe that several of the editors of these pages are nothing but scheming propagandists. It's true that some of them have also assumed you to be acting in bad faith at times. The difference is that they haven't seen fit to call me out like you did here. So that's between you and them.

Regards, Mateo LeFou 19:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: on a sorta-lighter note, I thought it funny that you said "Sarcasm and violation of good faith aside" but still mention three times that I violated AGF. What does aside mean in this context?

[edit] Lead proposal

Israel-Venezuela relations have historically been strong, and Jewish people have built a vibrant community and done well in Venezuela. Relations soured in 2006, following comments made by President Hugo Chávez about the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, and due to concern over his increasing ties to countries calling for Israel's destruction. Emigration has resulted in a significant drop in the Jewish population in Venezuela, amid concerns of economic instability and allegations of anti-Semitism.

This is not a direct quote from any single article, but instead summarizes all of the articles. If BLP deletionists insist upon exact wording from any one article, then each part of that statement has to be expanded and referenced to include exact wording in the lead, getting back to the Mateo criticism about Kevlaring statements with refs. All of the references support this lead. If we agree on the lead, I can start building the history section from the new references, with supporting detail for the lead in the body of the article. Sandy 04:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Summarizing all the articles is not just acceptable, it is preferable, as per Mateo's PECT guidelines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mateo_LeFou
 ;)
I would appreciate your comments in response to that. Mateo LeFou 06:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
It's too late at night my time to read your guidelines, but generally: Good luck in explaining that to my co-editors. I've been advocating exactly that for a long time, and if you care to read through months of horrific talk page history, you can see where WGee, Flanker and JRSP simply disagreed . Welcome aboard ! I've wanted to cut Chavez in half for three months, summarize it simply, and skip the piecemeal he-said, she-said, but they refused. Maybe we can write an encyclopedic entry now. They *never* would have let me write a summary lead without exact wording from scrupulously cited sources backing every single word. Sandy 06:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Your characterization of me is false. Although I did disagree that the article needed to be further summarized, I have never opposed the removal of tit-for-tat assertions. In fact, Flanker and I have been the leading proponents of the removal of overly-specific tit-for-tat assertions (please look at Flanker's recent thread: The removal of verifiable opinion from the article). You, on the other hand, have relentlessly filled the article with negative material to vindicate your glaringly apparant thesis that Chavez is a dictatorial, economically irresponsible demagogue, showing complete disregard for the overall quality of the prose. You have thereby precipitated the "piecemeal he-said, she-said" that you allegedly aspire to eradicate. -- WGee 07:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel does not equal Judaism and the strong POV is not answered either

Republitarian offered to split the article to Judaism in Venezuela, I propose both are inserted into the title.

Arab relations should also be removed as they serve no purpose other than to provide guilt by association per WP:BLP it will be removed.

Lastly all of the accusations of anti-semitism will be balanced that means truncating the accusations and introducing other theories as to why the accusations occur.Flanker 17:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The information about Arab relations is obviously relevant to Israel-Venezuela relations, and has nothing to do with WP:BLP - this has been explained to you above. Also, if you want to "balance" the anti-Semitism material, you'll need to find reliable sources discussing it - please be sure not to invent your own counter-arguments, and please be sure not to delete relevant material again. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:BLP it allows for deletion of material without discussion or consensus.
Criticism should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association.
Guilt by association not with its presence but also by what it quotes:
According to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Chávez "is pursuing closer strategic relations with Arab countries and Iran, and is emerging as a key supporter of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who repeatedly has called for Israel’s destruction.
Here it is implied that Chavez agrees with Mahmoud (specifically the destruction of Israel) simply for having good relations.
“The sure thing is that in the mind of millions of Arabs, Chavez is now in the same league as Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, and other ‘heroic’ Arab figures.”[24]
Of all the quotes found in the article this was specifically chosen to equate Chavez with Nasrallah.
Chávez paid a two-day visit to Iran when the government faced international criticism for continuing its nuclear program and backing Hezbollah guerrillas.[34] On Chávez's birthday, July 28, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad presented Chávez with Iran's highest honor for "supporting Tehran in its nuclear standoff with the international community".[35]
Again why is this relevant to the article at hand? more guilt by association.
Chávez pledged that Venezuela would "stay by Iran at any time and under any condition." Ahmedinejad called Chávez a kindred spirit. "I feel I have met a brother and trench mate after meeting Chávez." Chávez said he "admired the Iranian president for 'his wisdom and strength'," saying, "We are with you and with Iran forever. As long as we remain united we will be able to defeat (U.S.) imperialism, but if we are divided they will push us aside".[36]
Ditto
Reuters reported that Chávez told a crowd at the University of Tehran, "If the U.S. empire succeeds in consolidating its dominance, then the humankind has no future. Therefore, we have to save the humankind and put an end to the U.S. empire". The reports adds that Chávez slashed out at Israel and labeled the 2006 Lebanon offensive as "fascist and terrorist." Decorating Chávez with the "Higher Medal of the Islamic Republic of Iran", Ahmadinejad said, "Mr. Chávez is my brother, he is a friend of the Iranian nation and the people seeking freedom around the world. He works perpetually against the dominant system. He is a worker of God and servant of the people."[37]
Ditto
The 60% of the article is a violation of WP:BLP if Judaism is added to the title then parts of it will remain, re-worded however, the relationship witht he Arab world not only is not relevant but it is made specifically to attack Hugo Chavez.Flanker 19:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Material about the relations with the Arab world, Hezbollah, Iran etc. are all quite obviously relevant to Israel-Venezuela relations. The material is quoted from reliable sources. WP:BLP has not been violated, and this has been explained to you more than once. False claims of WP:BLP do not entitle you to delete material that you do not like. Jayjg (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Then explain this:Criticism should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. It is not my interpretation it is verbatim. This is clearly an attack piece, specifically when the individual at hand has never referenced Judaism or Jews in a negative light, the whole case is built by circumstantial evidence. Hardly the standards of an encyclopedia.Flanker 19:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
But the "claims" that you are referring to are your own inferences, they are nowhere stated in the article itself. And Chavez's cozying up to various Arab countries etc. is obviously relevant to Venezuela's relations with Israel; how could it not be? Venezuela is pretty much run by Chavez these days. Jayjg (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I resent your interpretation of Venezuelan politics, Venezuela is run by Venezuelans and everything that Chavez has done with re: to this topic follows public opinion. Secondly specifically does not mean relevant or close to It means specifically regarding Israel-Venezuela relations since Chavez is constitutionally responsible for foreign policy then he is allowed for both Israel and I guess Judaism (if&f judaism makes the title). Third guilt by association is ALWAYS implied, I have yet to see anybody argue explicitly "he is good friends with Stalin so is just like Stalin."Flanker 19:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Chavez has consolidated a great deal of power in his presidency, and the only Venezuelans who agree with him are, of course, those Venezuelans who agree with him - by definition, all other Venezuelans disagree. Anything Chavez, as President and ruler of Venezuela, does as regards Arab countries, Hezbollah, Iran, etc. is directly related to his relations with Israel. And the inferences are all your own, and not covered by the sections of BLP you have quoted. Moreover, the reliable sources think they are relevant. Jayjg (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Your prejudice against the individual in question is not helpfull in the resolution, I could easily dispell it but it is not relevant and I do not want to pull rank. Second that is an incredible directly related Well actually no. Iran and Israel are two different subjects (really most of the connections) the former being a whole country, the connection with Hezbollah is only about an non identifiable Arab that compared him to Nassarrallah and a spokesman praising his action, (both in itself a violation of relevancy) please read WP:BLP it is not just about sources and verifiability is is about overwhelming negative POV being allowed on living individuals that can sue wikipedia.Flanker 19:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no prejudice against Chavez; I'm not particularly interested in him. However, he does run the country. And the incredibly bad relations between Iran, its proxy in Lebanon Hezbollah, and the "criminal Zionist entity" that must be "wiped from the map", are quite obviously relevant topics. Jayjg (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Venezuela has good relations with Iran, and that has nothing to do with Israel, We have no relations with Hezbollah and the only link are what they say on an internet forum or Hez spokesmen (I can't stress this enough). BTW the consolidation of power is in itself the prejudice, and highly debatable.Flanker 20:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You may not think Venezuela's relaions with Iran are relevant to its relations with Israel, but the sources do. Jayjg (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Venezuela have always have good relationships with Arab countries: Significant Lebanese and Syrian communities, several OPEC members. I think the strongest support for the POV of this article was highlighted in one of your contributions Jayjg: According to the Roth Institute "perhaps the most serious incident ever to have taken place in the history of the Jewish community" was a raid without a single person hurt. Now, is Venezuela an antisemitic country run by an antisemitic President? JRSP 19:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's say the government sent armed troops into your kids school to search it based on, well, apparently nothing; wouldn't you consider that to be a serious incident? In any event, the reliable source is properly quoted. Jayjg (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not against the inclusion of that if&f Judaism is included, and both sides equally presented, speaking personally a criminal investigation over a cold blooded assasination matters more than scared children.Flanker 20:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by "both sides"? Do you have reliable sources which talk about this raid and assert it did not have a big impact on Venezuela's Jewish community? Jayjg (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
That is precisely why this article is in serious need of review, not only is it pushing ONE POINT of VIEW, it is also regionally biased with 80% of the critiscism outside Venezuela.Flanker 19:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. This article is not about Venezuela-Middle-East relations; it's about Venezuela-Israel relations. It does not matter if Israel has interests in Arab nations. Furthermore, this entire article is obviously centered on Chavez's anti-Semitism, and is intended to make him look like an anti-Semite. This article is not even supposed to be about anti-Semitism in general; it is supposed to be about the inter-state relations of Venezuela and Israel. And, unless you pay more attention to Israel-Venezuela relations before Chavez's regime/less attention to Israel-Venezuela relations during Chavez's regime, this article must be renamed. -- WGee 19:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
"Regionally biased"? What does that mean? Are there reliable sources with other points of view? Jayjg (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Regional bias means that the criticism is almost entirely outside Venezuela devoid or our traditions history and reality, there is internal criticism and it is presented, but it obviously not good enough, the article says the SAME thing over and over and over again, all criticism mirrors the other and the one in particular I am trying to remove per BLP is the most fallacious relying on guilt by association. As for there being other sources it is beside the point, once the article becomes what it should it will be added.Flanker 20:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
It has been explained to you many times that BLP is not relevant here. I'm sorry you cannot understand that, but in any event I'm not going to bother reading any statements you make that rely on your faulty understanding of BLP, or even mention BLP. If you want to address some issue in another way, please feel free to do so, and I'd be happy to read and respond. Jayjg (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is relevant and have quoted parts of it verbatim, on the other hand you argue with semantics like relevant being the same a specific and that guilt by association is never implicit.Flanker 22:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Reminding several contributors here that Wiki is built from reliable sources, not opinion.

I resent your interpretation of Venezuelan politics, Venezuela is run by Venezuelans and everything that Chavez has done with re: to this topic follows public opinion. Many reliable sources disagree with your opinion, with respect to Israel, Iran, anti-Semitism, and Chavez's consolidation of power. You should not insert your personal opinion, implying that the Venezuelan people support what Chavez has done wrt Israel and Iran. Is there a BLP rule to prevent you from slandering Venezuelan people, who have always been supportive of Jewish people? Shall I remind you of the unanimity in Venezuelan society of expression of horror at what Chavez's forces did to the children at the Hebraica, while not touching Club Magnum?

This is a TALK page Sandy, I cannot allow a baseless accusation go unansewered in a TALK page, neither you or I has shown any scientific evidence to prove public perception re: the war in Lebanon (but I am far more likely to be correct), again in the Talk page Wikipedia marches along its own drumbeat. Flanker 22:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I could easily dispell it but it is not relevant and I do not want to pull rank. Pull what rank? As a Venezuelan? Again, your views on what Venezuelans say/think is your opinion: many and varied reliable sources disagree with your interpretation of what Venezuelans say, and many reliable sources verify the astounding degree to which Chavez has consolidated power and eliminated all balance of power in Venezuela. And you can't easily dispel that without quoting wildly radical far-left sources.

Pull rank because I know the subject in detail wereas he claimed to not know or care. As for me quoting left-wing sources you quote right wing sources it still baffles me how you think because somebody published it is true yet it is not the same for the left.Flanker 22:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, is Venezuela an antisemitic country run by an antisemitic President? According to reliable sources, no the former, and yes to the latter. Which, besides the fact that it is verified by reliable sources, agrees 100% with my personal experience. Sandy 20:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No Sandy he is accused of being anti-semetic, that is a big difference, if somebody accused you of being anti-semetic in a left wing journal does that make it true?Flanker 22:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe there's so much argument on this. The use of guilt-by-association is obvious. Very obvious. Mateo LeFou 22:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. -- WGee 03:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

A couple points.

  1. Anti-semitism (whether real or mere perception of it) is crucially relevent. One of Israel's expressed foreign policy goals is to protect and give voice to international Jewry. Thus the controversy over whether the leader of Venezuela is anti-semitic shapes relations between the two countries and should be given ample treatment.
  2. Venezuela's relations with Arab countries and (even more so) Iran are also very relevent. Israel (and all countries) bases its relations with other nations on whether they have a common enemy or common friends. Iran is Israel's main foreign policy foe. Thus the fact that Chavez met with Iranian officials (and the perceptions it created in Israel) is of great significance in an article about Israel-Venezuela relations. Omitting information about ties ot Iran is analogous to leaving out the fact that Cuba was on the side of the Soviet Union during the Cold War in an article on US-Cuba relations. nadav 08:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Those things, if true, don't change the fact that guilt-by-association is disallowed.
That said, I'll take up your analogy. "the fact that Cuba was on the side of the Soviet Union" esp. in the 60s is essential to a discussion of US-Cuba relations. Yes. Encyclopedic language disallowed language like "on _______'s side", but whatever. What is clearly superfluous and inflammatory is, for example, talking about the Soviet Union's oppression of its people in an article that's supposed to be about Cuba.
The question is of treatment. The fact that Chavez has expressed support for the Palestinian cause and Arab nations is essential. But the redacted language quoted above is not the way to treat it. Mateo LeFou 12:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No connection?

Venezuela has good relations with Iran, and that has nothing to do with Israel, We have no relations with Hezbollah and the only link are what they say on an internet forum or Hez spokesmen (I can't stress this enough). Iran has nothing to do with Israel? And Chavez's statements while in Iran have nothing to do with Israel? Apart from the mystery of how you miss that, reliable sources disagree. Perhaps we should expand the paragraph explaining how the padding of voter rolls works in Venezuela, including the reports of terrorist organizations on Margarita, to make the direct connection to Chavez more clear?

According to U.S. News & World Report, U.S. government officials say the Chávez administration allows alleged terrorist organizations to operate within Venezuela's borders, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamiyya al Gammat. U.S. officials also allege that the Venezuelan government is knowingly providing identity documents to these organizations. The Venezuelan government denies these allegations. (Robinson, Linda. (US News and World Report, 06 Oct 2003). "Terror Close to Home". Retrieved 04 Nov 2005.)

I thought it was already pretty clear. Sandy 21:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Iran is a country Israel is another, so no there is no connection in the article, as for yet another outlandish accusation without evidence.... Chavez and Wayne Madsen say the US participated in the coup... there it is proven right there.<rolleyes>Flanker 22:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you comparing the sourcs used in this article to Wayne Madsen ? Sandy 21:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Well at least I got a reaction YES it is the exact same, both are verifiable from RS, both are opinion, and both fail to prove what they accuse. In my eyes they are the exact same. Flanker 22:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Flanker, are you honestly contending that "US officials" would associate their enemies with terrorism without rock-solid proof? I'll believe that when I see it. ;) Mateo LeFou 22:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The extreme Irony is that is not even Official US foreign policy, this is:
"WASHINGTON - The United States is imposing a ban on weapons sales to Venezuela because of what it claims is a lack of support by President Hugo Chavez’s leftist government on counterterrorism efforts, the State Department said Monday.
The Bush administration will also list Venezuela — the fifth-largest supplier of oil to the United States — as a “country of concern” in the war on terrorism, an official told NBC News, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The label is not as severe as being listed as a “state sponsor of terror,” but it reflects what the State Department reported in April about Venezuela in its annual terror report."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12801930/
And it all has to do with the FARC and ELN, so evidently they define terrorism (Luis Posada Carriles is not) define who supports it and yet Venezuela is not even lablled as a state that supports terrorism (well YET). Evidently Mrs Robinson is the only source of this Hezbollah/Hamas connection.Flanker 02:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
If you have a source that says that Chavez's close relationship with Ahmadinejad or other Arab leaders has soured Venezuela's relations with Israel, then include it. Do not, however, include two large sections on Chavez's comments regarding Iran and other Muslim nations, and merely infer that it is pertinent to Israel-Venezuela relations.
That so much attention is paid to Chavez's alleged anti-Semitism and his relations with Arab countries, rather than to the government of Venezuela's relations with the State of Israel, indicates how unimportant Israel must be in the Venezuelan government's foreign policy. FlankerMateo said it best: "Suppose there were an article on Italy-Africa relations that mostly discussed accusations of discrimination against people of color under Napolitano. Would that make sense?" The content of this article suggests that it was only created because of Chavez's controversial statements about Israel and Jews, not because Venezuela actually has a meaningful, practical relationship with Israel, as the title erroneously suggests. -- WGee 03:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
That was me, not flanker! heh. And I got a response saying such a treatment of Italy-Africa relations would make sense. Really brightened up my day... Mateo LeFou 12:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. Anagnorisis broke up your post with his comment, so I didn't see your signature. Anyway, Anagnorisis' response to your comment astounds me; I would hate to see this type of article replicated. -- WGee 03:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The logic that no one has written the other articles (which should be written) is not reason to delete an article that is written. This is the kind of faulty reasoning one sees all the time on AfD. Must we delete dog because no one bothers to write cat, pig, cow or horse? Sandy 03:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

This talk page is getting extremely long. Tennis Dynamite 21:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guilt by association is still very much present in this article

And according to WP:BLP it should be aggressively removed, it is so absurd that in the quotes about Iran not only are Jews not referenced but neither is Israel. The official stance of the governemnt of Tehran with re: to Israel is not Venezuela's current foreign policy stance, Venezuela has many very important ties with Iran and none of them relative to Israel.

Hezbollah is actually worse since Chavez has not mentioned them either, or met with them, etc.Flanker 17:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I just found an interesting diff where guilt-by-association came up earlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel-Venezuela_relations&diff=69818905&oldid=69666432
Summary: JSRP said "This part reads very much as guilt by association: "Chávez's longtime friend, the late Argentian writer and Holocaust denier Norberto Ceresole,... "
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIsrael-Venezuela_relations&diff=72039582&oldid=72028608#Guilt_by_association)
Incredibly, this was addressed by expanding the amount of negative material about Ceresole
i.e. "his longtime friend Norberto Ceresole, an Argentinian writer infamous for his books denying the Holocaust and his conspiracy theories about Jewish plans to control the planet." And for good measure the next sentence is " Holocaust denier Ceresole calls the Jews of Venezuela the greatest threat to Chavismo in his Caudillo, Ejército, Pueblo (Leader, Army, People).[1]"

Mateo LeFou 18:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I fully support any actions to remove these guilt-by-association tactics (which are incredibly obvious), as per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. But, if possible, replace the removed material with something appropriate and informative. -- WGee 04:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent misapplication of WP:BLP

There have been multiple and numerous attempts across many article talk pages to get three editors (User:SuperFlanker, and to a lesser extent, User:JRSP and User:WGee) to understand that they are misapplying and misinterpreting WP:BLP when deleting major chunks of well-referenced text from this article, Hugo Chávez, Criticism of Hugo Chávez, and others.

The misinterpretation of BLP has been discussed on at least, but not limited to, the following talk pages:

and multiple times on this talk page. [30] [31]

Nonetheless, these three users persist in deleting content not favorable to a pro-Chávez POV, claiming BLP, even though criticism is well sourced, balanced, and quoted usually almost verbatim.

Looking at this article only, we find the following deletions in the last few days of well-sourced material:

The pattern on Criticism of Hugo Chávez and Hugo Chávez is even more pronounced. User:SuperFlanker, in particular, is adamant in his belief that his reverts and removals are not subject to 3RR (for example, see this post to Jayjg's talk page.) Application of 3RR is moot anyway, since there are 3 editors working together to remove content unfavorable to Chávez from articles.

Sandy 18:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That is your interpretation on the other hand I quote policy verbatim in the case above: WP:BLP Criticism should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. The whole subsection of Arab connection is guilt by association, if you feel so strongly lets set up an audience with the Mediation Cabal as we did last time. Flanker 18:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
To date, it appears that what you call my "interpretation" is shared by User:Zleitzen, User:Jayjg, and User:jossi. Sandy 18:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh good let's form sides and have a soccer game. j/k. Sandy, does the quoted material employ guilt-by-association or not, in your opinion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mateo LeFou (talk • contribs) 18:28, 26 August 2006 UTC.
Please do not put words into their mouths, the only one to have shown problems with the interpretation is User:Jayjg. and the disagreement is detailed above. He claims that guilt by association that is implicit is allowed, I disagree. Flanker 18:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I have claimed no such thing; please don't falsely attribute statements to me. Jayjg (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Flanker has misconstrued Jayjg's response, which is here. Sandy 20:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is one of Jossi's several responses to same on Chávez articles, and one of several of Zleitzen's responses to same on Criticism of Hugo Chávez. Sandy 18:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Another section from the Criticism article from Zleitzen. Sandy 19:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Again User:Zleitzen Has mildly disgreed with me and I have never debated User:Jossi. Neither even touched on the subject of guilt by association. Flanker 18:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Flacker-- It's hard to see how the wholesale removal of the Chavez criticisms can be justified. WP:BLP does not exclude all 'guilty by association' material-- all it does is EMPHASIZE that biographies of living persons should comply with Verifiability, NPOV, and No Original Research. Nothing in this policy should require us to exclude criticisms of a person that are notable and well-sourced.

The fact is-- Chavez _IS_ criticized for associations. This isn't just 'guilt by association'-- this is (according to critics) a guilt OF association. That is-- he's openly being criticized for choosing to associate with some people. I happened to see a whole segment on CNN just yesterday that talked about criticism of Chavez for his associations. This criticism is notable, it's verifiable. We shouldn't exclude them on the basis of BLP. --Alecmconroy 20:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think guilt-by-association is by definition POV. The reason is that saying Chavez is tight with Iran "which has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction" implies that C somehow endorses such statements. You need a statement by HC that expresses that (reprehensible) sentiment before it's fair to associate him with it. Mateo LeFou 21:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
But, you also think that "Hugo Chavez will turn out to be one of the most important political figures of the period 2000-2050."[32] Sandy 02:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
That is true. But I did not say whether it's 'cause he's a really really good guy or a really really evil guy. In any case your attempt to paint me as biased is off-topic. Mateo LeFou 04:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This "guilt by association" criticism is rubbish that completely misses the point. Our job is not to look deep into Chavez's heart and discover truly if he is an antisemite. Our job in a foreign policy article such as this is merely to describe the actions he has taken that can be percieved by Israel as warming up to its enemies. Iran is Israel's main enemy, so Chavez's meeting with the Iranian president is just as notable for this article as Castro's relations with the USSR would be in an article on US-Cuba relations. The phrase "which has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction" is just an efficient, time-saving way of showing that the person Chavez met is an arch-nemesis of Israel. nadav 09:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Key word percieve is original research, and that is what this article is you cannot find a single reference to Chavez saying "you know Ahmadeniad I agree 100% re: Israel" or anything close to, so everything added is UNRELATED to Israel because you percieve it is related to Israel. Flanker 14:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hugo Chávez is standing up against capitalist imperialism and one can fully expect those whose ox he is goring to use their trillions of dollars to smear him. Wikipedia needs to be careful to be NPOV and to do so we need to realize what the POV warriers are for and are against. This is a socialism vs. capitalism and imperialism vs nationalism and rich vs poor POV battle with the battlefield including everything from blogs to mainstream media with forming general public opinion being the object. One side will tell you it is for freedom, international cooperation, nondiscrimination and against terrorism, restainst of trade, racism, poverty creating policies. The other side will tell you they are for equality, education, national trade policies like the US used in the 1800s when it needed to grow its internal industries and against policies that favor rich people and rich nations and the use of force and fraud in tricking poor natons and people out of what is theirs. Wikipedia needs to try not to misrepresent the facts, the arguments, or the interests. WAS 4.250 23:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like you are accounting for the economies of petrodollars, or are aware of how Chavez has spent his oil windfall in extending his power reach outside of Venezuela, while most Venezuelans still live in abject poverty. Sandy 18:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More errors introduced into text

Flanker, please correct the following errors you have introduced into the text:

The Roth Institute reports that both opposition newspapers El Universal and El Nacional have accused Israel of genocide,

The Roth Institute does not report that El Universal and El Nacional are "opposition" newspapers.

In its 2002 report, the Stephen Roth Institute says that Venezuelan-American journalist Ted Cordova-Claure, writing for the opposition newspaper Tal Cual

The Roth Institute does not say that Tal Cual is an opposition newspaper.

In both cases, you've found some other source who claims they are "opposition" newspapers. Now, since you want to introduce that POV into this article, can you please explain to us how an "opposition" newspaper can exist in a country where criticism of the President is prohibited by law, and journalists and newspapers who break that law are prosecuted and persecuted? Since you want to introduce that POV into this text, you do understand that the other side of the story will need to be told, right? If you want to introduce that POV, it will need a separate sentence, since you are incorrectly attributing it to the Stephen Roth Institute and asserting it as fact, and since you are not telling the full story, about limitations on freedom of the press in Venezuela, specifically with respect to criticism of Chávez. Thanks for correcting the POV, Sandy 22:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy first of all you had zero problem in labelling CEPR as a liberal think tank in criticism of Hugo Chavez from an irrelevant USA TODAY article. Second your miscaracterizations are all flawed here is EL Universal printing Chavez is a dictator [33] also here [34] (Spanish) Tal Cual photoshoping a rose and putting a gun in Chavez hands and printing it in the first page[35]. Neither are in jail persecuted or shut down. In short the media is not only extremely free but is perhaps the most critical media of the government in the whole world. Flanker 22:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Tal Cual, we should also mention that Teodoro Petkoff is Jewish JRSP 23:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree we should footnote Petkoff, but we need a source. That Petkoff is Jewish is not disputed, in contrast to Flanker's "opposition" claim. Sandy 23:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's a source for Petkoff's Jewish origins, and linking him to Tal Cual. Apparently, Flanker is not going to make the corrections, and I'll have to do it tomorrow. [36]. Sandy 01:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually Petkoff being Jewish is far more disputed than him being part of the opposition, one of his parents is Jewish but I believe his practicing religion has not been made public. Flanker 23:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Please correct the attributions, as you are still incorrectly attributing that information to SRI. I do not introduce my analysis: I discuss what multiple and very reliable sources say, your original research notwithstanding. If you are going to introduce POV, it needs to be separated, and discussed. It is not attributed to SRI. Thank you, Sandy 23:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it disputed that Petkoff is opposition? JRSP 23:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I think if you word it to incorporate Petkoff, it will work better. What Flanker has done is to make it sound like SRI says the papers are opposition, and opened this article to the whole can of worms about the limitations on press freedom in Venezuela. If he is going to introduce the word "opposition", those reliably-sourced facts about the laws governing criticism of Chávez will have to be introduced also. Very different situation from the widely-acknowledged fact that CEPR is a liberal think tank :-) Sandy 23:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The dispute is that Sandy challenges there isn't free press to begin with and as a result no opposition press, it is rather interesting how he believes all of his sources but not those that contradict them. Flanker 23:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I'ts not "my challenge". Multiple organizations along the lines of, oh say, Human Rights Watch and quite a few others do, though. Sandy 23:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
And what do they specifically state? I am sure you will be shocked to notice that what they claim is not the same as what you editorialize, secondly they only represent opinion, I can find tons of venezuela media articles calling him a dictator, If it is not good enough I could link to the equivalent of right wing talk radio, and lastly highly critical oposition TV stations. There is reality and then there is opinion. Flanker 00:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to have another discussion about you not believing in the use of reliable sources, over your opinion. Edits must be based on reliable sources, period. Sandy 00:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
OK I put a reliable source labelling them opposition papers (and did so before 22:56 Wikipedia time) I am glad this is settled, it was you that introduced original research wondering out loud how it was possible for there to exist an opposition media because in your opinion there is no free media in Venezuela. Flanker 01:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Third request: Flanker, will you please fix the error you introduced into the text. The SRI did not say that the newspapers were "opposition". Please change it.

The restrictions on freedom of the press in Venezuela are not my opinion: it is the statement of multiple and numerous reliable sources, which you are well aware of. Thank you, Sandy 01:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere does this article call either El Universal or El Nacional an "opposition" newspaper. [37] Since Flanker will not make the changes, I wil make them tomorrow. If you want me to use the word "opposition" with the correct attribution, please provide a source. Sandy 01:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
You are correct in the source they are labelled worse, being coup collaborators in 2002
On Sunday, the new military-installed government began to collapse, and the world outside Venezuela began getting the news. Inside Venezuela, however, only one Catholic radio network continued to broadcast news reports of what was actually happening. All four major television networks halted news reports entirely. Izarra, still working on the story, received a transmission from RCTV’s correspondent in Maracay, a provincial capital seventy-five miles west of Caracas, where the general in command of a major military unit had declared his support for Chavez’s return. It was an exclusive. No other network had a reporter at this pivotal event. Izarra says his boss ordered him to keep it off the air. “I was very outspoken about my opposition to this,” Izarra says. “The vice president [of RCTV] called me up and said this is the policy, either follow it or leave. I said, ‘I’m leaving. This is against my principles.’ It was one of the biggest stories of our modern history and we were not covering it.”
Late that afternoon, Chavez supporters began taking control of the presidential palace. It was all but over, but still no television network had broadcast the news. The official explanation from the networks was that the situation in the streets was too dangerous for reporters. That rationale held little water, according to a study by the Catholic University Human Rights Center, since the networks had blanketed the streets with reporters in the equally tumultuous days before the tide turned against the opposition. Meanwhile, two of the three major newspapers, El Universal and El Nacional, made similar decisions, explaining afterward that they sent the printing-plant staff home for safety reasons. Both canceled their Sunday editions, whose lead stories should have been on the crumbling coup and Chavez’s imminent return to power. One of the big papers, Ultimas Noticias, refused to line up with the opposition. It hit the streets with a limited edition that accurately reflected the country’s plunge into confusion and chaos. Several tabloids in Caracas and some of the provincial TV stations also resisted the opposition line.
I did not want to create a characterization that was too verbose, but if we have to say what the source claims then so be it.Flanker 02:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Meanwhile, two of the three major newspapers, El Universal and El Nacional, made similar decisions, explaining afterward that they sent the printing-plant staff home for safety reasons. Wow. How do we get from there to "opposition"? Sandy 02:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
That rationale held little water, according to a study by the Catholic University Human Rights Center, since the networks had blanketed the streets with reporters in the equally tumultuous days before the tide turned against the opposition. Meanwhile, two of the three major newspapers,.. One of the big papers, Ultimas Noticias, refused to line up with the opposition. That is what it said around what you copy pasted.Flanker 02:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Please stop responding with original research. The question is, how do you get from there to "opposition"? Papers are free not to report during a dangerous situation. You still have not corrrected your errors in the text, which imply that the SRI called the newspapers "opposition" sources, meaning I'm going to have to make the correction myself. If you want me to use the word "opposition", I still need a source. Sandy 02:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Sigh I was going to post that whole rationale but it would hurt the article with too much verbage, you wanted a source calling them opposition then here it is http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1220 again both on the same article. Will change it. Also the theory that they were afraid is so busch league, Newspapers send reporters to war, and they sent reporters during much more trying times a few days earlier. Flanker 02:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Flanker, please stop filling article talk pages with personal opinion and original research. It bogs down the talk page, and is inappropriate. In war, reporters aren't the target. In this case, they were the target. Reliable sources do not say EU and E-N are "opposition" newspapers: it's not surprising that VenAnalysis (a biased source) says that, but others say reporters stayed home because the situation was dangerous. Sandy 02:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The Catholic University Human Rights Center clearly disagrees, Universidad Catolica is also an opposition institution BTW. As for introducing original research to the talk page, It was not me start at the top :D. Another thing Venanalysis is no more biased than the ADL, SWC and my favorite CNSNews.Flanker 03:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The Roth Institute reports that both opposition newspapers

The Roth Institute did NOT report that "opposition newspapers ... "

Fourth request: please correct. You are inaccurately attributing that statement to the Roth Institute. Sandy 03:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Very well I will see what I can do. Flanker 03:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Next, you now have the "pro-Chavez Web site, Venezuelanalysis.com" [38][39] calling EU and E-N "opposition" papers. Do you really want to have a duel within the article about veracity of sources? If you are going to introduce a POV term, without a high-quality, unbiased source, your source will also have to be labeled. JRSP has a justifiable issue with respect to Petkoff and Tal Cual — not surprisingly easy to source to the New York Times — and we quickly dispensed with it. After filling up the talk page, you are still introducing speculation and POV from a highly-biased source. Sandy 03:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There is little veracity to debate Although I can see it now: Venezuelanalysis.com a pro-Chavez Website claims that El Nacional and El Universal are opposition newspapers. Can't wait to read that. Flanker 03:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
That is exactly what you are introducing, and exactly why these articles and talk pages are so long. VenAnalysis is not a credible source. Find a better one if you want to call the newspapers "opposition". Sandy 04:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
does this count? "“The Bush administration is trying to paint Chávez as something of a dictator,” Bourgeois said. “But they have freedom of the press. There were opposition papers everywhere, and Chávez gets a lot of bad press. They have the freedom to protest. There are large demonstrations all the time. And there are no political prisoners” -- a fact that even Stephen McFarland, a top U.S. embassy official, conceded to the delegation."
http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2004b/040904/040904j.php
Sincerely, does it count? I need a grounding in where to find good info.Mateo LeFou 04:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
More: "Recent polls --- not the rigged ones done by the opposition papers in Caracas, but surveys taken by respected international pollsters --- suggest that if a recall election is held a majority may vote against Chávez, but not a sufficient one to remove him from office." http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_10/issue_05/editorial.html
I promise I'm not being contentious. I don't know a lot about WP:RS and desire comment Mateo LeFou 04:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Salon. "This weekend, there were articles in El Universal, La Razon, Zeta, El Nacional and many others, hammering on the Government and its mishandling of PDVSA. Chavez showed that he is sensitive to the issue, attacking all of these newspapers by actually showing them, only hours after being published and showing his skin is really getting thin, as discussed by Daniel, who points out how carefully Chavez appears to read these “bad” (or should I say “crappy”) opposition papers" http://blogs.salon.com/0001330/2005/05/16.html Mateo LeFou 04:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Inserting hyphens doesn't solve the problem. You still have the statements attributed to SRI. I will remove them unless you correct the following:

  • 1) you have attributed them incorrectly, still to SRI
  • 2) you have not provided an unbiased source for the claim, and
  • 3) your claim these are "opposition" papers is completely irrelevant to the text. The text is not critical of Chavez; it is a report of general anti-Semitism in Venezuela. Sandy 03:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
1) no it does not a hyphen clearly demonstrates a break from the train of thought, similar to a parenthesis.
2) WP:RS does not say anything about bias being disallowed, second of all the entire article is constructed using biased sources.
3) It is important because it points out the context of what the Venezuelan people (Chavistas and opposition alike) think of Israeli military incursions. The Hitler comparisons is not native to Chavez it is actually quite common due to the strong irony made apperant to some. Flanker 03:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

After four requests to Flanker to correct the errors in the text, I made the corrections. Sandy 16:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biased sources

Preferably, I would like to see all biased secondary sources removed from the all of these Hugo Chavez–related articles, unless they are used to relay statistics or quotations from a primary source. Academic publications (such as International Affairs by the Chatham House ) and similarly reputable sources are the only things that should be cited. Academic essays are peer reviewed; have reasonable, rational criticisms; and do not resort to sensational language to convey their theses. Further, academic essays are selected for publication usually because they are deemed to be vitally important to their fields; thus, they tend analyze the broad picture and ignore superfluous details and statistics. Other sources are acceptable as well, as long as they are not overtly biased.

So, in essence, I would like to see only non-biased sources in these articles. That would not mean an absence of criticism, however, because more or less neutral sources (e.g., Amnesty and the Chatham House) do discuss criticisms. The difference is that these neutral sources focus on deep, broad and intriguing criticisms, rather than on sensationally-phrased accusations regarding specific news events. If, however, it is absolutely necessary to refer to a biased news agency (like The Economst, for example) in order to gain the critics' POV on a particular event, make sure that their assertion is recapitulated in encyclopedic language.

-- WGee 04:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree but that would be swimming against the current, Wikipedia is deeply flawed in that way. Flanker 02:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what The Economist has to do with this article; I encourage you to discuss your proposed redefinition of reliable sources on the talk pages of WP:RS and WP:V. This talk page is already bloated with original research. Sandy 22:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
An Off topic the economist really has a bone to grind against Venezuela [40] Not only do they praise Trinidad and Tobago for growing thanks to High Natural gas prices but they slam Venezuela for growing equally as fast under the same superficicial circumstances, not only that they also get a dig in comparing the east paria penninsula (a non urban area) to Urban Trinidad. I guess we know where the South American Tiger label will not surface. Flanker 02:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Pay closer attention to what I write, Sandy: I have not attempted to "redefine" reliable sources. I fully embrace WP:RS, but I believe that merely adhering to it will not do for this article. In order to deal with this extraordinarily controversial article, we must surpass the standards of that policy. Ultimately, editors have the right to decide which sources are appropriate for an article: editors can choose to surpass or, in some cases, ignore guidelines under exceptional circumstances. -- WGee 04:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I have paid very close attention to what you wrote: it is absolutely necessary to refer to a biased news agency (like The Economst, for example). What you are requesting is a redefinition of reliable sources to reflect what appear to be your personal opinions and views of bias. The irony of your statement is remarkable, considering the series of Chávez articles have extensive content from a source which does not conform with WP:RS and WP:V —VenAnalysis — a non-neutral pro-Chávez website,[41][42] which appears to violate copyright by claiming Fair Use for articles available only for a fee from their original source,[43][44] exists to further Chávez's "revolution", does not appear to meet the journalistic criteria and credentials laid out in WP:RS, and is funded by a pro-Chávez organization, Aporrea. The need to remove Venanalysis from the articles was raised in the FARC 3 months ago, and was extensively discussed on the Hugo Chávez talk page. Work to remove it as a source began, was never completed, and editors continue to insert it as a source. There is a no more clearly biased source in these articles than VenAnalysis, so it is ironic that you recommend raising the bar to exclude clearly reliable sources by any definition, while accepting content from VenAnalysis. I suggest that you will have a stronger case about what you call "bias" once you have edited the articles to remove VenAnalysis. Using VenAnalysis as a source for so much content in the Chavez articles amounts to making Wikipedia another branch of Chavez's PR machine. Please practice what you preach. Sandy 16:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Hugo Chávez, [45]:

Again I agree, it is not about criticism it is about forcing that criticism on the article, for example on Israel-Ven they quote the most convinient stuff in order to introduce POV. Prime example is the source about people comparing Chavez with Nasarrallah, there are plenty of positve quotes (I am opposed to them as well on principle of NPOV) in that article but whoever wrote it chose the most inflamatory in order to introduce POV, it is a long and ardous battle trying to fight opinion criticism (he is this, that etc) as opposed to factual criticism (crime rates have increased X ammount). Have a look at my user page for something I am trying to change. Flanker 17:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no battle to fight POV: you are welcome to include any quotes which were left out and that you think are appropriate. What you are not welcome to do is to include original research, POV, and information that is poorly-sourced. Republitarian chose most of the content to include, and he might not know Venezuela as well as we do (example, Petkoff). If you disagree with what he chose to include, {{SoFixItAlready}}. I certainly don't have time to do *everything*, when it takes an entire talk page to try to get you to correct inaccurate information you put into the article. The problem occurs when you insert essay, opinion, original research, and poorly sourced information from primary or biased sources. Sandy 17:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

WGee, please stop violating WP:AGF, and please refrain from making attackish statements in edit summaries. [46] I will not revert your change, although I believe the quotes are more accurate: what you call "biased" sources are reliable sources according to Wikipedia. Sandy 19:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, I would appreciate it if you would look at my comments above (in "Population estimates and emigration") before continuing to preach about AGF.Mateo LeFou 20:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you referring to where you laid out a list of factual statements, and then labeled them attacks? For example, your first:
WGee (in concert with another uninvolved editor) ... reverted six months' worth of consensual work on the article (producing a perhaps intended side effect of chasing off most of the Venezuelan editors)
This is a demonstrable (with diffs) statement of fact. Where is the attack? WGee reverted the article. It was his first edit. He never discussed it on talk page. And several editors left, as a result. You weren't here, so you didn't know that, so I chose not to extend an already bloated talk page by discussing ancient history here. Feel free to review old history on personal talk pages with me, if you need more background information. These talk pages are increasingly being used as a personal message board. Sandy 21:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Where is the attack. Nowhere. But the assumption of bad faith (the topic at hand) is: "producing a perhaps intended side effect of chasing off most of the Venezuelan editors". If WGee edits in good faith, he/she does not intend to chase off Venezeulan editors. If you were assuming good faith the words "perhaps intended" would not be there. Thank you for the reply, though Mateo LeFou 21:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a solid diff to back that assertion as well, with doesn't need to be replayed on this talk page. Sandy 22:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
First of all, you contribute nothing to the discussion by persistently referring to that incident in an attempt to shame me. This is a wiki, anyway, so the editors could have and should have rolled-back my edit if they found it utterly unacceptable.
What you are requesting is a redefinition of reliable sources to reflect what appear to be your personal opinions and views of bias. No, I am not. I just told you what I am requesting: that we raise the standard of sources for this exceptionally controversial and important article. Editors are allowed to use their personal judgement in evaluating sources; thus, there is nothing wrong with my expressing "personal opinions and views of bias" in relation to sources. That is what you have done, that is what Flanker has done, that is what every editor does.
Moreover, I understand that Venezuelanalysis is ostensibly biased, but so are numerous other sources like The Economist. Both sources are unpreferable, but I do not understand why you claim that Venezuelanaysis, in particular, is unreliable.
Finally, either my statement is an "attack" or it is not; there are no rules in Wikipedia governing "attackish" statements, except WP:CIVIL, perhaps. And if you find my edit summary to be incivil, just say so, in plain language. Don't call a statement an "attack" or "attackish" (which is very inflammatory) unless you are confident that the administration will consider it an "attack".
-- WGee 02:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, for the record, I did not intend to "chase off" any Venezuelan editors. For somone who was (at least initially) very keen on garnering Venezuelan involvement, you are very incivil to the Venezuelans currently involved in the article. Also, please stop bringing up that incident in bad faith; I will tolerate no more of your ad hominem denunciations. -- WGee 03:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh the irony specially when Sandy openly threatened to chase ME off, for the record WGee their participation was not really that much, I was there it was mostly Sandy and me doing the bulk of the edits, with Enano changeing the references to the new system which was what you did as well.Flanker 04:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Sandy openly threatened to chase ME off. Produce the diff. Sandy 04:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure this is how you view me [47] This is how I view you[48]. Flanker 05:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I have responded to your unsubstantiated personal attack on your talk page. Sandy 05:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes we continued the discussion in the talk page, but for the record it was not a personal attack. Flanker 06:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economist/Venezuelanalysis.com

What an astonishing discussion. The Economist is a highly respected newsmagazine; perhaps the most highly respected newsmagazine in the world - it is exactly the kind of source considered by WP:RS to be "reliable". Venezuelaanalysis.com is an openly partisan website, which (on top of violating copyright) appears to be devoted almost solely to propaganda - it is exactly the kind of source that WP:RS insists should not be included on Wikipedia. That one should suggest that they are comparable in any way boggles the mind. Please provide a policy based rationale for keeping any material from Venezuelaanalysis.com on this article (and, indeed, anywhere on Wikipedia). Jayjg (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Astonishing indeed, and quite problematic, as almost *all* of the content (um, except mine) throughout dozens of Chavez articles is based on VenAnalysis. I have been attempting to have this addressed for about four months now: instead of being removed, VenAnalysis is being added. Sandy 18:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Just as legitimately as one could say that Venezuelanalysis is a pro-Chavez propaganda machine, one could say that The Economist is an anti-Chavez propaganda machine: the degree of anti-Chavez bias in The Economist's Venezuela-related articles is comparable to the degree of pro-Chavez bias in Venezuelanalysis' articles.
Venezuelanalysis also houses primary and some secondary documents that cannot be found elsewhere in English, such as Chavez's speeches. Although I would prefer not to use Venezuealanalysis, it evidently houses some crucial documents and articles.
If Venezuelanalysis' Fair Use claim has been legally challenged successfully, it should certainly not be used as a source. But my interpretation of the U.S. copyright law cited by Venezuelanalysis indicates that it is within its legal rights. If somebody can point to a clause in U.S. copyright law that seems to prohibit the actions of Venezuelanalysis, my opinion might change, however.
Further, mainstream Western media often focuses on Chavez's foreign policy rather than his domestic policy; thus, Venezuelanalysis is sometimes the only English source that can describe Chavez's domestic policy in detail.
-- WGee 22:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Analyzing WGee's response to VenAnalysis is a non-neutral pro-Chávez website,[49][50] which appears to violate copyright by claiming Fair Use for articles available only for a fee from their original source,[51][52] exists to further Chávez's "revolution", does not appear to meet the journalistic criteria and credentials laid out in WP:RS, and is funded by a pro-Chávez organization, Aporrea.  :
Just as legitimately as one could say that Venezuelanalysis is a pro-Chavez propaganda machine, one could say that The Economist is an anti-Chavez propaganda machine: No. The Economist is a broad publisher across many topics, including ample staff of editors, publishers, journalists, and fact-checkers. VenAnalysis only exists to cover one topic, and is founded by a sociologist, with a staff of 3, according to their website. That is, in essence, a Chavez PR machine, without the usual editorial oversight.
Venezuelanalysis also houses primary and some secondary documents that cannot be found elsewhere in English, such as Chavez's speeches. First, even if it were true that they couldn't be found elsewhere, that doesn't make it a reliable source. Second, most of the information could be found elsewhere, from balanced sources, if editors would take the time to look. Using VenAnalysis as a translation engine doesn't make it a reliable source.
Your analysis of Fair Use law is mistaken, at Wikipedia's risk. Further, WP:EL says: "Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page is not violating copyright per contributors' rights and obligations. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States. "
Venezuelanalysis is sometimes the only English source that can describe Chavez's domestic policy in detail. That is not correct. It is, however, the only one that consistently gives a one-sided, biased view of Chavez's "revolution".
You have not provided a policy-based rationale for using this biased source. Now, looking at WP:RS:
"Have the secondary sources used multiple independent primary sources? " No, VenAnalysis consistently uses sources that support a pro-Chavez POV.
That is still a an independant primary source case in point PANORAMA so it is a yes Flanker 03:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
"Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? " Yes. They are avowedly pro-Chavez, and funded by a pro-Chavez group. (see above).
They are provided a server by a grassroots pro-chavez group, the economist has an equal ammount of conflict of interest to be against Flanker 03:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
"Have separate editorial oversight and fact-checking processes; " Is Wilpert the editorial oversight?
They have third person fact checking according to the about page Flanker 03:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
"Have the sources reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? Cross-check with what you already know." No.
I disagree Flanker 03:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
And, looking at WP:V:
"Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." No.
They fact check and are quite accurate, enough to get a reputation with the MSM such as the Guardian. Flanker 03:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Sandy 19:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The Economist is so anti-Chavez that with the fall of Berlusconi he is probably public Enemy #1 with Mugabe (odd considering Kim, Castro and a few other die hard communists, maybe they see a threat) The fact that they are more borad maybe even diminishes the quality of their articles compared to Venanalysis that despite being biased knows what is going on (the economist does better than the MSM but that is the only credit I give it) Both are WP:RS and WP:V despite their biases. Flanker 03:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guilt *of* association: Chavez in Iran

Press conference of Chávez in Iran: http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1213wmv

Sandy 23:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It is still guilt by asociation I saw the video and it added nothing new, no Israel(state) should be destroyed, no jews are responsible, and no Holocaust denial, if anything it was milder to the anglo-saxon world since the Hitler comparison was not made like before. Flanker 02:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Flanker, I completely fail to see validity in your arguments of "guilt by association." The US refrains from meeting with Ahmadinejad. The EU refrains from meeting Ahmadinejad. Why? because of his radical statements about Israel and the Holocaust. But Chavez obviously does not care about perceptions and meets with him anyways. The point is that no one is saying that Chavez believes Israel should be destroyed, but merely the fact that he is meeting with enemies of Israel, which other countries friendly to Israel have refrained from doing. This is important information for this article. nadav 23:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
US Presidents met with Soviet and Chinese leaders from Stalin to Mao yet refused to meet with Castro. Not meeting with a leader is not about how evil they are; it is about how lacking in power they are. WAS 4.250 04:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
No it is your perception that countries that you percieve are friendly to Israel are not meeting the enemies-of-Israel whereas those friendly on the latter do, again Guilt by association is POV and Original research, nobody would argue that the US approved the gassing of the Kurds because Rummy visited Saddam in the 80's but according to your logic I could very well add to it under Kurd-US relations, lets not even forget the Pinochet-Israeli connection as well. Chavez recieves criticism for his aquaintences and they are duly noted already in the article, however the whole Arab and Iran subsection is guilt by association. Flanker 04:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
You are completely and purposefuly misreading my words. All I said is that it is significant that Chavez met with Ahmadinejad, thus breaking ranks with other friends of Israel that have not met with him. I am definitely not saying that this shows that in his heart of hearts he wants Israel destroyed. It is merely a notable move that was much commented on in Israel. There is no conspiracy here to defame Chavez. nadav 05:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Nor am I claiming that, what I do claim that is original research is this whole category of friends of Israel do not meet enemies of Israel, surely you understand. The Israeili response linking Chavez with Ahmadinejad is valid, however if you read most of the Arab or Iran section Israel is not even mentioned in the quote. Flanker 06:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article size

I have to say that there is a lot of material here for a page that deals with a fairly inconsequential aspect of Venezuelan foreign relations, nothing wrong with that, but it's a surprise to read so much here when there is not yet a Cuba-Venezuela relations article. Which actually plays an important and significant role in Venezuelan foreign relations, and is a far more expansive and relevant topic! Any takers for that article? --Zleitzen 16:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

We should have, at minimum:
All of these have information for an entire article, and there are more. We already have:
I'll make the initial preparations for the Cuba-Venezuela relations article, creating templates and so on --Zleitzen 20:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't have time to work on any of these. I have my hands full dealing with POV, unreliable sources, and mass deletions claiming BLP. And, I'd like to trim, summarize, and merge Hugo Chávez and Criticism of Hugo Chávez. Sandy 20:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syria

Sandy 04:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

(These are not related to Israel, but I'm saving them in case he says anything inflammatory while there, and we later need any references about the trip.) Sandy 12:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Saying something inflamatory in Syria is still guilt by association, only this time it is more specifically guilt by physical placement, why can't people realise that per WP:BLP only accusations of syrian connections can make it if done by an Israeli source NOT him sitting in a tree with Assad? Flanker 17:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jerusalem Post article

[edit] UN visit

More of the same guilt by association, I have yet to see that famoust anti-jewish quote or even insinuation they are always talking about, it stems more from a pro-israeli agenda attacking using anti-jewish angle, rather shameful. Flanker 17:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Articulo parcializado

Me he puesto a leer con cuidado este articulo y definitivamente NO es neutral, en primer aspecto parece más un panfleto destinado para desacreditar al presidente Hugo Chávez en vez de un articulo enciclopedico que mencione la relación entre Venezuela e Israel, tampoco se menciona casi nada de la política de cuarta república con respecto a Israel por ejemplo que la Disip (policía de inteligencia venezolana) estaba controlada en parte por el mossad israelí. Como está el articulo ahora es mejor que pongan el titulo "Relaciones Hugo Chávez-judíos" (Hugo Chávez-Jewish relations), pues casi no se habla nada de las relaciones entre Israel y Venezuela, sino Chávez contra los judíos (es de risa la verdad, Chávez tiene de cosas mas importantes de que ocuparse como por ejemplo del imperialismo de Estados Unidos, que meterse con los judíos).

Igualmente poner la frase "países llamando a la destrucción de Israel" es claramente parcializado, el discurso del presidente iraní fue manipulado realizando una traducción maliciosa de su discurso en farsi, exactamente igual del discurso de Chávez que hablaba sobre la oligarquía y los medios de comunicación hicieron creer que era contra los judíos. Israel como un buen país titere de Estados Unidos, está haciendo el trabajo sucio del imperialismo estadounidense de atacar a Venezuela. Este articulo es claramente no solo antichavista sino también antivenezolano, tiene que ser totalmente reescrito.--K4zem 17:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia; could you please comment in English? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
More of the same same which has been stated, the article is quite POV.Flanker 01:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I Not speak english, sorry. El titulo del articulo es engañoso debería ser cambiado a Hugo Chávez-Jewish relations. Practicamente se habla de la relación del gobierno de Chávez con los judíos. --K4zem 08:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

K4zem says he's read the article carefully and basically repeats Flanker's reasoning for calling it biased (poorly titled, doesn't discuss long-standing relations, etc.). But, K4zem goes beyond Flanker's arguments, making the, um, unsubstantiated claims which the reliable sources dispute: K4zem says the DISIP (Venezuelan's intelligence police) was controlled by the Israeli Mossad. Very roughly translated, he says Chavez has more important things to worry about than the Jews, like U.S. imperialism. He says using the words, "countries which have called for Israel's destruction" is clearly impartial. He says translations of speeches were manipulated (I disagree). He calls Israel a puppet of the United States, and says they are doing the dirty imperialist work of the U.S. against Venezuela. He says the article is anti-Chavista, anti-Venezolano, and has to be completely rewritten. I find his reasoning faulty and evidence for these claims lacking; his interpretation of the article can be viewed in the context of his admission that he doesn't speak English. Sandy 17:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for translating. In other words, there's no reason for the POV tag? Jayjg (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
None that I can see. On the other hand, if you believe that Mossad runs the world, and certain countries don't call for the destruction of Israel, well, take it from there. Sandy 17:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
En cualquier caso como ya he dicho dos veces, el articulo no habla de las relaciones de ambos paises, sino la de Chávez con los judíos, quisiera saber como ven el gobierno y la población de Israel a Venezuela, el articulo no dice nada, seguramente tampoco conseguiran poner nada, las relaciones entre Venezuela e Israel han sido irrelevante, este articulo debería cambiarse el titulo o ser borrado. Las unicas relaciones importante de Venezuela ha sido con los países latinoamericanos, Estados Unidos, España, Italia, Portugal, Inglaterra (solo el siglo XIX) y los países arabes y de la OPEC. Incluso la relaciones con Estados Unidos son cada vez menos importantes, que me causa una profunda satisfacción. Este articulo está parcializado, más neutral es el articulo de Hugo Chávez y mantienen el cartel de NPOV.--K4zem 18:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
If you are going to put words in his mouth Sandy at least make it an accurate translation rather than making him look anti-semetic.Flanker 22:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
If you don't speak English, it's hard to see how you can reasonably criticize this article. Jayjg (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
K4zem is saying that, anyway, the article doesn't talk about the relations between the countries, rather Chavez and the Jews, he'd like to know how the government and population of Israel sees Venezuela, the article says nothing, surely because there's nothing to say, the relations between Venezuela and Israel are irrelevant (yes, that's what K4zem says), the article should be deleted or the title should change. The only important relations Venzuela has had are with LatinAmerican countries, USA, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and the UK, the arab countries and OPEC. The relation with the USA is less important every day, which causes him (K4zem) "profound satisfaction". This article is biased, the Chavez article is more neutral, and it has a POV tag, according to K4zem.
My response: the Chavez article has a POV tag for reasons well explained many times. Editors there refuse to allow for a merged, concise summary of the content which is now divided between Hugo Chavez and Criticism of Hugo Chavez, giving due weight to all sides of the story, written in a concise, summarized format. Instead, they reject any content which is not pro-Chavez unles it is an exact quote from reliable sources (no summary or paraphrasing of overall concepts), and say all content which is not pro-Chavez must go to a separate article, which they label as "criticism", even though the content is an equally held point of view as the pro-Chavez Chavez article. Hugo Chavez relies heavily on plainly biased sources (ZNet, Venezuelanalysis.com) which don't rise to the level of reliable sources, and presents pro-Chavez information, claiming anything else is "criticism" which must be relegated to a separate article. K4Zem has made no argument for bias in this article: he might have an argument that it's not comprehensive, since no one has added historical information about relations between Venezuela and Israel, but he has presented no argument for bias. His "profound satisfaction" at the decreasing relationship with the USA is noted; however, it appears that K4zem hasn't looked at Venezuela's trade data. I'm not going to continue to translate: K4zem's own bias is explained, and it's hard to understand how he can critique the article effectively without speaking English. Sandy 21:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
A lot of issues in the talk page remain unsolved: The mix of Israel-Venezuela relations with Chávez alleged antisemitism, guilt by association, presenting good Venezuelan relations with Arab states and Iran as Anti-Israel, biased sources like the Stephen Roth Institute (What do others HR organizations say?). This article has had problems since Republitarian (now blocked) started it JRSP 22:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Who started the article has nothing to do with its content: please delineate specific POV if you are tagging the article POV. For example, "the mix of Israel-Venezuela relations with Chavez alleged antisemitism" isn't POV. Please give specific examples of what you say is POV. Thanks, Sandy 22:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


It seems some cannot bear to see any facts printed about Chavez that do not reflect so well on him, even if they come from good sources. All the issues to which JRSP refers have been answered again and again. Chavez's views are relevant since he is the leader of the country. If there were similar stuff about Olmert, we would print that here too. Venezuela's relations with Iran are important for this article because in Israel's eyes, a country cannot be on excellent terms with its enemies and call for the end of the imperialist ways of its friend america and still be friends with israel. As for the Stephen Roth Institute, I hear calls for more Israeli opinion of relations with Venezuela and yet you call this academic university-affiliated think tank biased?? The article does not depend too much on its report anyways. And this "guilt-by-association" mantra has lost all its meaning long ago. If there are any POV concerns, please print specific lines you find objectionable so we can address them here. nadav 08:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Guilt by association is extremely relevant and is part of policy WP:BLP, Just like I cannot put in the article that he admires Chomsky and therefore is not anti-semite/jew, you cannot put that he is friends with Ahmadinejad. Flanker 17:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Please notice that the Iran section is placed in the larger "Recent Middle East events affecting relations" section and not in the part about anti-semitism. The point is that Venezuela (under Chavez) chooses to befriend enemies of Israel, which has implications for the Israel-Venezuela relationship. The point is not that this shows that Chavez personally is anti-semitic (which would indeed be a guilt-by-association argument). All this has already been mentioned above. nadav 21:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undue Weight

Among the most egregious NPOV problems from which this article suffers is Undue Weight. Though some rebuttals of anti-Chavez comments are indeed cited, so much of this article is simply a list of claims that Chavez is anti-Semetic. Until this problem is addressed, the pov tag should remain in place. --Zantastik talk 10:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Info on Chavez and the Venezuelan Jewish Community

ARTICLE: "Chavez denied visit to Caracas synagogue"

Chabad rabbi argues that visit intended to garner political gains

Chaim Levinson Published: 02.25.07, 21:58 / Israel Culture

A recent request by socialist Venezuelean President Hugo Chávez to pay an official visit to a Chabad synagogue in Caracas was rejected.

The Chabad official news site posted an article saying that Rabbi Moshe Ferman, the chief Chabad envoy to Venezuela, had rejected the president's request arguing that it was aimed at garnering political gains in light of the West's revulsion of him.

Article continued here. --172.145.1.171 00:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iran section

Why is there a section on Venezuela-Iran relations in this article??? As this example reflects, much of this article is about Venezuela-Middle East relations, which isn't the purpose of the article.

Tomertomer 02:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/s/r/Talk%7EIsrael-Venezuela_relations_f277.html"