Talk:Criticism of Hugo Chávez

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 21 May 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Chávez and the Arab World

This isn't a criticism. It just says that Chavez is anti-Zionist and pro-Palestine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.204.81 (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wording change

I've changed "lodged" to "made", as the former sounds as if the the article is going to be about complaints formally presented to a governing body/court, and only one (suit filed at the Hague) fulfills this. JackyR 15:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti semitism

During a speech on December 24, Chávez declared "the descendants of those who crucified Christ... have taken ownership of the riches of the world, a minority has taken ownership of the gold of the world, the silver, the minerals, water, the good lands, petrol, well, the riches, and they have concentrated the riches in a small number of hands". The full speech can be found here. Marmaduque 22:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The accusations of anti-semitism seem to be a misinterpretation. The quote includes important context that is left out by the elispses. FAIR reports that the full text shows that he was talking about powerful minorities, not Jews.--Bkwillwm 06:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
However, these accusations are on the rise again (I don't know if rightfully so or not), due to Chavez' one-sided support of Hizb'Allah in the current Israel-HA conflict, his recalling of Venezuella's diplomat to Israel, as well as his buddy-buddy status with Iran's leader, who publically called for for "wiping Israel off the ME map." Check this mainstream-media source: http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/748351.html --Telecart 18:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The alleged anti-Semitism of Chávez is 100% forged. Please check this: Venezuelan Jews defend Chávez in anti-Semitism flap. I just quote an interesting part of that article:
"The Venezuelan Jewish community leadership and several major American Jewish groups are accusing the Simon Wiesenthal Center of rushing to judgment by charging Venezuela's leftist president, Hugo Chavez, with making antisemitic remarks.
Officials of the leading organization of Venezuelan Jewry were preparing a letter this week to the center, complaining that it had misinterpreted Chavez's words and had failed to consult with them before attacking the Venezuelan president.
"You have interfered in the political status, in the security, and in the well-being of our community. You have acted on your own, without consulting us, on issues that you don't know or understand," states a draft of the letter obtained by the Forward. Copies of the letter are also to be sent to the heads of the World Jewish Congress and the American Jewish Committee, among other Jewish groups."
Let's not spread this non-sense any more. Moreover, the Christian Gospels tell that the Romans crucified Jesus of Nazareth, not the Jews. I expect some Roman Anti Defamation League to accuse Chávez of anti-Romanism... When he was here in Milan he seemed to like the city, so the accusation could make some sense (Rome vs Milan is something like West Coast vs East Coast, Barcelona vs Madrid etc.). :-) --MauroVan 13:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Chavez comments seem anti-semitic to me. Anyone calling Jews Christ-killer is anti-semitic. Taken in context with his anti-Israeli rheotric and friendship with Holocaust deniers make Chavez anti-semitic. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it is a duck.

Ironically, the fact that you think he was referring to Jews when he said "Christ-killers" shows your anti-Semitism. He was referring to oligarchies, a common theme populist leaders refer to. The oligarchy in Jesus' time being the Roman Empire. Coeus (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


The above comment must be old, seeing as it ignores the addition of a proper context which indicates that Chavez did not refer to Jews as Christ-killers but rather the rich and powerful. My historical knowledge is far from perfect, but Simon Bolivar was not defeated by Jews, but rather by the Spanish at a point when they were violently persecuting Jews; thus, Chavez remark 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," seems nearly impossible to understand as anti-simetic.
More importantly, it should be noted that being critical of Israeli foreign policy, or even of the existence of the state of Israel, is not equatable with anti-semitism: I myself am a Jew and am not only critical of their foreign policy but suspect that the existence of the state imperils the essence of Judaism qua religion and qua culture.
Finally, recognizing that the genocide perpetrated against Jews (the strangely named "Holocaust") is not unique should not qualify an individual as an anti-semite, but merely as well informed.
If you have a screwy definition of a duck, you are liable to misidentify. --Adynatoniac (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms from U.S. mainstream media

I personally dislike when someone offers conclusions without stating his reasons, sources or evidence for them. So without deleting it completely the: "Though Pat Robertson had previously attended meetings with George Bush to discuss the invasion of Iraq, with these and other comments he put himself well outside the mainstream of even the Bush admistration and ostracized himself dramatically from most of the US including the Christian Right. Thus the comments provide little support to Chávez's claims of U.S. imperialism and intentions to assassinate him." conclusion (or statement of fact, if we give the writer the benefit of the doubt), which comes with no reason, should be revised. I only deleted the final line. This gives, in my opinion, the reader the freedom to make up his own mind about the subject. But if more people think this whole final statement should be revised (deleted, or supported with evidence) please revise it properly, and STATE YOUR SOURCES OR SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSIONS WITH DOCUMENTAL EVIDENCE. We cannot rely on personal conclusions about a subject if they are not stated by an expert on the subject(and even then we should question them).

[edit] Nationalizing Oil industry

I think what Chávez did to Venezuelas oil industry should be included here.--Doom Child 05:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nationalization and Land Grabbing

I would be really interested to see descriptions of Chavez's policies relating to land grabbing and nationalization on this page. I feel like I always hear reports from the anti-Chavez group about him closing people's bank accounts and taking their property, but see no evidence of it anywhere here on wikipedia. There are reports on the web that point both ways, but I see none as really credible news sources with Chavez's control of domestic media and the extreme left or right leanings of western media. Lechevre 18:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Le Chevre, April 11, 2006

What do you want to know? Mattm1138 07:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope people will add these sections. I'm willing to copy edit and/or translate as best I can. Sandy 03:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Chávez doesn't control most Venezuelan media. Just have a look at some Venezuelan TV channels or newspaper, apart from a few of them. They're in the hands of the extreme anti-Chavista right wing. --MauroVan 00:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image ?

Anyone notice that the image in this article (anti-Chavez marchers) is inferior, and doesn't reflect at all the magnitude of the marches against Chavez? Subtle POV. The images in the main Chavez article are better, but we need a new one. Anyone? Sandy 03:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extreme POV

Even though it might seem logical to include all accusations and critiscisms under a daughter article it is still POV fork against Wikipedia policy, every statement has to be referenced and a counter statement (if a counter-statemetnt was made) should be included also, since the mother article is being comadeered ;) perhaps we should start fixing all of the loose ends for now.Flanker 18:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Consensus was that this article is not against policy. [1] May I suggest you wait until those "comandeering" the mother article finish whatever they're up to, before deciding which way to head next? (In the interest of affording them a measure of respect which they didn't afford us, anyway. :-) Sandy 19:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Just a note: Flanker used the term "comadeered" above with a smilie emoticon, and I used it in quotes, reflecting that I was also speaking in jest. Nonetheless, it can certainly be argued that reverting six months worth of work on Hugo Chávez, with no prior talk page discussion or consensus, could be labeled as such. Sandy 15:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand I am not arguing delition, but it IS against a solid policy regardless of consensus [2]. Having read that link this is my stance more or less:
"Keep Criticism can be handled in a NPOV manner. See Biblical criticism. I think that too much of the material that is included here is not encyclopedia material. Look at how the article Dreyfus Affair handles a touchy issue in a reasonable length. Bejnar 18:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)"Flanker 20:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
"A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." And, from the AfD referenced above, it can be concluded that this article was not an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines, rather an appropriate and acceptable use of Summary Style, to shorten the main article. If you still disagree, maybe you can ask the new "comandeerers" if they want to bring the entire content of this article back to the main article? It just seems unproductive to make changes here without figuring out which way they're going, especially since our previous work was shown so little respect: hate to see you waste your time :-) Sandy 20:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
"At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available." [3] This article is in no way exempt from Wikipedia's policy regarding undue weight. -- WGee 21:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I suppose it will be hard to find any rebuttals to the observation that Hugo Chávez is a strong arm dictator, intent on repealing civil liberties and human rights to enlarge his own power. He is neither a communist nor a facist, but merely a dictator in the style of Pol Pot. Lowellt 03:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
He is the democratically elected head of state. He is no more dictator than George Bush is, some would argue even less so as his electoral victory was a *clear* mandate of the people. 66.25.191.52 00:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A young German also won a "clear" mandate from its people, his name: Adolf Hitler. Democratically elected does not imply that he has not become a dictator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.109.32.51 (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested reorganization of article

The article is currently organized according to origin (by group) of criticism, resulting in incomplete and overlapping categories, as some criticism comes from multiple sectors. It was suggested, in the Hugo Chávez article, that it would make more sense to organize the criticism by the actual criticism, rather than the person or group leveling the charges. Here ia a suggested outline, so we can work on headings and sub-headings -- please help determing if list is complete, how it should be organized, and what headings and sub-headings should be:

  • Authoritarian demagogue
    • Electoral fraud and manipulation, resulting in
      • Consolidation of power, elimination of balance of powers and oversight, incl. judicial
      • Dismantling of democratic tradition and institutions
        • State of Democracy in Venezuela
      • "President for Life" (needs better wording)
  • Violation of fundamental rights
    • Freedom of speech, freedom of dissent, political prisoners, political repression
    • Human rights violations
  • Failed domestic policies
    • Crime
    • Corruption
    • Economic - poverty unemployment GDP etc.
    • Forced wealth redistribution (CocaCola for the masses)
    • Failing infrastructure
    • Destruction of PDVSA and oil industry
  • Threat to global oil prices and supply stability
  • Promoting class and racial hatred and violence
  • Foreign policy
    • Emphasis away from long-standing friendly relations with USA, towards, e.g.; Cuba, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea
    • This section would include problems with Colombia, Peru, Mexico, USA at minimum
    • "Chávez effect", alienation of other Latin American countries, now distancing themselves from his failed policies and rhetoric
    • Controversial statements
  • Arms and weapons buildup, furthering terrorism, FARC, etc.
  • Calls for assassination

Sandy 14:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with this outline and the current format (I think they are different). It's still very confusing and not very organized.

It should be something like (as a general example)...

Intro

  • Domestic
    • Allegations of Electoral Fraud
    • Human Rights Violations
      • Free Speech ... etc.
  • Foreign Policy
    • Issue 1
    • Issue 2 ... etc.
  • Notes

Spaceriqui 05:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Out-of-context quotation

The quote "Referendum to remove Chávez? That is not possible, don't waste time. I will not go in a referendum, I say that to the country and the world. It's like this: I won't go. ... Not even if we suppose that they hold that referendum and get 90% of the votes, I will not leave. Forget it. I will not leave." is completly out of context here.

On November, 2002 it was not legal yet to make a recall referendum ( less than half of the term). He was refering instead to a consultive referendum proposed by the oposition but later deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Tribunal on 2003. The following quote where Chávez says he would accept the result of the referendum refers to the (constitutional) recall referendum of 2004.

The quote should be removed, or at least, put into context. JRSP 02:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a fudge. Just because it wasn't yet time for the recall (according to him, and the ever-changing rules), he still said he wouldn't go. If you think it needs more context provide it, but the recall WAS being discussed in 11/02, and that IS what was being referred to. Sandy 02:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I asked in the other talk page but was lost in the hoopla where is the link to it? I agree that its addition is nebulous at best, but it still has to be verified what if he said was taken out of context.Flanker 02:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It is not out of context. The context was discussion of a referendum: it was quite clearly being discussed at the time, and he quite clearly said he wouldn't go. How do you want to change that context? Pretend there wasn't discussion of a legitimate referendum when he said that? Sandy 03:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
They are two different classes of referendum. Putting both quotation together is completly misleading. What Chavez was pointing out on Nov 2002 was that a consultative referendum is non-binding accordingly to the constitution. On the other hand, the second quotation refers to the recall referendum which is binding. On 2003, the Supreme Tribunal ruled out that using a consultative referendum for circumventing the time limits for another kind of referendum was unconstitutional. This is also the reason why the opposition had to make the "reafirmazo" as the original "firmazo" of 2003 was not constitutional. JRSP 03:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Right, he kept changing the rules, but he still said he wouldn't go. How about this: locate a transcipt of the entire Alo Presidente show, and use a primary source to prove your context. If you can show, from a primary source, that he specifically said what you claim he said, then we can use that for the context. Sandy 03:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The best thing would be to have a transcript of "Aló Presidente" 128, but they only have pdf transcripts for newer programs in their website. On http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refer%C3%A9ndum_presidencial_de_Venezuela_de_2004#Antecedentes there in some information showing there were indeed two diferent referendum calling attemps: "consultivo" and "revocatorio". On November 2002 the oposition was still calling for a "referendum consultivo". The results of this referendum would not have been binding even if they would have got "90% of the votes" In the first quote Chavez is just saying he does not accept the calling of a consultative referendum disguising a recall referendum and even if it would take place he was not bound to leave the presidency. The second quote refers to a legal recall referendum. Check also http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2413563.stmJRSP 05:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The source has to be found we can't have a major POV statement go unverified.Flanker 17:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've been asking for months for someone who is actually *in* Venezuela to go and find some of this stuff. For example, there was a whole lot of info in Early Life of Chavez that couldn't be verified: why doesn't someone in Venezuela go look for it? Or should I go to an embassy here in the USA and see what they have? Sandy 18:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Sandy that might be hard since I hit a snag in finding it online, that said shouldn't it be he who posits who should provide the evidence?Flanker 18:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Correct, that's why I asked JR to find the full text so he can refute this: I can't do it, I'm not in Venezuela. Sandy 18:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
But where is the link that proves this? it seems like both sides are equally responsible for a link, BTW it should be online finding a transcript of Alo in Venezuela is much harder.Flanker 18:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
There is NO REQUIREMENT IN WIKI that reliable sources be available online. If that were a requirement, it would disallow a huge chunk of all the reputable books ever written. This is something you concocted on the main Hugo Chávez article to keep out content you don't approve of. Sandy 21:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with Flanker. I am not responsible for the original link, it is the original poster who must provide the source. However, I assume good faith but I still claim that Chávez was referring to a consultative referendum and I think the BBC(2002) source supports this claim. JRSP 18:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is the current text (omitting the quote): let's work on it here (but I've got limited computer access now):

Comments made by Chávez contribute to views his critics hold of him as having dictatorial aims. In November of 2002, add while a referendum was being proposed, he made comments indicating that, even if a referendum succeeded, he would not leave office. He stated, on his weekly television show,

"quote"

This statement was one of the bases for claims that Chávez has dictatorial aims, (repetitious - that is already stated) although Supporters say he was referring to add what he called an unconstitutional referendum, attempted before add allowed at the mid-point of his term [3] . Later on in 2004, when a legal referendum was approved, Chávez stated,

Remember, Chavez kept changing the laws and raising the bar, so these comments need to be made more neutral, considering he is the law in Venezuela, and there is no independent judiciary. I'd also like for other editors, eg Caracas1830, to review this before incorporating anything. The text that you have added thus far contains some POV, considering exactly what is or was "legal" and "constitutional" under various definitions considering Chavez' stacking of the judiciary. Sandy 15:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Chavez kept changing the laws" , "he is the law in Venezuela", "there is no independent judiciary" is your POV Sandy. In Venezuela, the Constitutional Chamber ("Sala Constitucional") of the Supreme Tribunal has the last word on deciding what is constitutional or not (accordingly to the constitution itself). JRSP 16:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
When it is documented by multiple reliable sources, it is not "my POV". Sandy 16:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean reliable sources stating that "Chavez is the law" or only stating that some people think so? JRSP 16:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I mean (multiple and credible) reliable sources backing up the fact that there is no independent judiciary, that he stacked the courts, that he consolidated power, and that he eliminated balance of power, consolidating power in the executive. Which means, loosely, he is the law. Sandy 16:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Then be bold and edit! JRSP 16:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Other editors won't let me, and they chased off some Venezuelan editors with "bold" reverts of months worth of work on the article, so I'm the only one advocating to tell the full story. No matter what reliable sources I use, they are reverted, and the manner in which the criticism was exercised from the main article was a double standard. This is not a hill worth dying on, until the Venezuelans want to come back and deal with it along with me. Sandy 16:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that a reliable source does not mean they are correct, what if I found a source that claimed there was a an independant judiciary? I mean it has ruled against the government on multiple occasions.Flanker 17:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
You don't get to be the sole judge of what is and isn't accurate; even though some of that is occurring in the main article, that's not how Wiki is supposed to work. If you find a reliable source that contradicts another sourced statement, you present that in context. Sandy 18:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It is not about being a judge Sandy it is about the way we debate here, you cannot just claim that every single legal act the government takes is wrong because there is no judicial independence, and you know this because somebody else told you (a verifiable source means making sure that person voiced that opinion not that the opinion is correct). How do you explain the TSJ ruling against cabinet members of the government? [4] She was the one leading the political campaign of Chavez during the RR a Karl Rove if you will.Flanker 18:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Found the transcript it was tricky since they the november html is not working thank god they do not restrict access to the server folders.

http://www.misionvenezuela.gov.ve/AloPresidente/2002/PDF/AP-128.pdf

"Así que pónganse más bien ¿a qué? a hacer su trabajo que tienen que hacer, su trabajo político, hacer propuestas dentro del marco de la Constitución Bolivariana. ¿Referendum consultivo para sacar a Chávez? Mi, no lo van a lograr, olvídense de eso. No lo van a lograr, no lo van a lograr ni aun cuando el Consejo Nacional Electoral apruebe la famosa pregunta, que es una pregunta totalmente contradictoria ¿está usted de acuerdo en que el Presidente Chávez renuncie voluntariamente? Esa es una contradicción en sí mismo. ¿Está usted de acuerdo en que el caballo blanco de Bolívar sea verde? Una cosa así. Más o menos así es la cosa. Ah, no, no, olvídense de cuentos, yo ni en el supuesto de que el Consejo Electoral declare o decrete o tome la decisión de que la pregunta es válida, bueno vaya. Ni en el supuesto que el Tribunal Supremo de Justicia también diga que la pregunta es válida. Bueno, vayan. Ni en el supuesto que hagan ese referendum y saquen 90% de los votos, yo no voy a renunciar."

Evidently it was taken out of context. Flanker 19:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ni en el supuesto que el Tribunal Supremo de Justicia también diga que la pregunta es válida. No, it was not taken out of context. DO not delete referenced content. If you think it needs to be adjusted propose it here, but he said he wouldn't go, even if the TSJ ruled it valid. Flanker, you have really got to take those blinders off. Sandy 21:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

even if the TSJ ruled it valid and the consultative referendum had been held and passed by 90% he was not bound to "voluntarily resign" JRSP 21:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Experience has taught me that Flanker has unique interpreations of things, and that Carcas1830 usually can give us an alternate view. No need to be in such a hurry to delete, rather than clarify, referenced text. Sandy 21:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it is not really a fair quotation as it has edits without ellipsis leaving out parts showing he was talking about a consultative referendum on a very absurd question JRSP 21:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, if we're going to re-do it, we're going to have to agree on a translation, so again, I suggest we hold off until Carcas1830 weighs in, and get it right. I disagree it's absurd: he said he wouldn't go even if the TSJ ruled against him. But, let's get the quotes right, and provide the context. With the help of other editors, since Flanker tends towards his own slant on things. Sandy 21:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
After "even if the TSJ rules the question is valid" i don't read "I won't go". If we are going to do a heavy editing on the quote we should better keep a single copy. The definive version can be copy-pasted after an agreement. JRSP 22:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually he never says "I won't go" but "you're not going to get it"( the consultative referendum ). JRSP 23:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind just waiting for others to weigh in: I just got so tired of constructing and re-constructing references on the main article every time someone decided to delete them. I don't think waiting a day is going to change the history of the world: I mean, Chavez is there for life anyway, so how much does one day to get the quote right really matter :-))  ? Sandy 23:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consultative Referendum (out of context quote - part 2)

Chávez quote is referring to the Consultive Referendum and it certainly needs more information. Chávez was the one who decided on Nov 2002 that the question and the referendum were unconstitutional(by the way, that's what the BBC article states"Mr Chavez rejects the poll as unconstitutional"[5]), before anybody else had decided anything (leaving the suspicion that he was suggesting both to the CNE and the Supreme Court what to decide on the matter).

The CNE, authority of the Electoral Power, independently approved a Consultive Referendum to be conducted on Feb 2nd, 2003 based on the following articles of the 1999 Constitution:

Article 62 "All citizens have the right to participate freely in public affairs, either directly or through their elected representatives. The participation of the people in forming, carrying out and controlling the management of public affairs is the necessary way of achieving the involvement to ensure their complete development, both individual and collective. It is the obligation of the State and the duty of society to facilitate the generation of optimum conditions for putting this into practice".

Article 71 "Matters of special national transcendence may be referred to a consultative referendum, on the initiative of the President of the Republic, taken at a meeting of the Cabinet; by resolution of the National Assembly, passed by a majority vote; or at the request of a number of voters constituting at least 10% of all voters registered on the national, civil and electoral registry."(Official Translations)[6]

Once again, the Consultive Referendum was not something that felt from the sky, it was written in the Constitution and initially approved by the CNE on Dec 2002 based on their independence and impartiallity granted by the Constitution.

Article 294 "The organs comprising Electoral Power are governed by principles of organic independence, functional and budgetary autonomy, separation of the electoral organs from the political parties, impartiality and citizen participation, as well as decentralization of electoral administration, transparency and expeditiousness of the voting process and tallying of votes".

The fact of the matter is that Chávez in many previous ocassions manifested his will of steping out of office with a referendum "at any time between 2000 and 2006" if that was the wish of the people, as it is possible to see in this 1999 video [7]. However, his new extreme position of 2002 led many to believe that he was becoming dictatorial because he was prepared to ignore the decision of the other branches of government.

On a final note, the Supreme Court never ruled the Consultative Referendum unconstitutional, but ruled that the CNE authorities were never proprely elected and confirmed by the National Assembly and therefore, should abstain from conducting Electoral processes until a new CNE was elected.[8].(Caracas1830 06:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

Thank you, Caracas1830. I knew there was more to the story, and I knew he had changed the rules many times, continually raising the bar, but I didn't know where to uncover those facts. If we can propose new text here on the talk page, perhaps we can come up with something more comprehensive, which will describe how Chávez kept changing the rules to stay in power. The information that is in all of these articles now really doesn't completely uncover the facts. I'll be out most of the day today. Sandy 11:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
A consultative referendum is not unconstitutional itself but the Constitutional Chamber warned it cannot be used as a recall referendum :
"Al respecto, la Sala advierte que no es posible que mediante la realización del referendo consultivo previsto en el artículo 71 de la Constitución sea jurídicamente viable revocar el mandato a algún funcionario de elección popular, debido a que el resultado del referendo consultivo carece de efectos vinculantes para los órganos de los poderes públicos, tal y como se aclaró ut supra. (Cf. Sentencia de la Sala de 4 de octubre de 2000, Exp. n° 00-2252).
En tal sentido, el resultado del referendo convocado por el Consejo Nacional Electoral el 3 de diciembre de 2002, mediante Resolución nº 021203-457, publicada en la Gaceta Electoral nº 168 del 5 del mismo mes y año, con el propósito de consultarle a los electores, para que éstos respondan con un “si” o con un “no” sobre lo siguiente: “¿Está usted de acuerdo con solicitar al Presidente de la República, ciudadano Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías, que de manera inmediata renuncie voluntariamente a su cargo?”, no puede obligar al Presidente de la República a la dimisión de su cargo, dado que el carácter consultivo del mismo no sujeta, per definitionem, a obligación alguna derivada de dicha consulta.
La Sala se considera obligada a recalcar, en obsequio de la transparencia exigida por el artículo 26 de la Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela que, supuestas las argumentaciones indicadas supra, la convocatoria del referendo consultivo, cuyos efectos se han analizado, es competencia del Consejo Nacional Electoral, pero que dicho referendo no es idóneo para los fines que la Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela atribuye a la revocatoriedad del mandato presidencial, y así se establece." [9] JRSP 12:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
A non binding referendum cannot be respected if it is un-constitutional, it shows no insight into any character nor any dictatorial intention if in the 2000 constitution (ie written after the video) states it very clearly that it had to happen after mid way.Flanker 14:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
BTW you forgot to post article 72 the most important and relevant article:
Artículo 72. Todos los cargos y magistraturas de elección popular son revocables.
Transcurrida la mitad del período para el cual fue elegido el funcionario o funcionaria, un número no menor del veinte por ciento de los electores o electoras inscritos en la correspondiente circunscripción podrá solicitar la convocatoria de un referendo para revocar su mandato.Flanker 14:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the video, as the Constitution was approved on 1999-12-15, he is more probably talking about his own proposal to the Constituent Assembly which perhaps did not included the half-term condition. The "mí" at the end seems to be on November 2002 when the Constitution was already aproved. You should read the article on misquotation. JRSP 14:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
And you should assume good faith. People, calm down...I didn't produced or edit the video, I'm just providing evidence to my statements with what is available and not with good neutral sources. I thought we were speking of giving context to the quote. Well, all those important decisions, approval of a Consultative Referendum written in the Constitution by the CNE(Dec 2002) and later deemed non binding and therefore, not the best choice to revoke a mandate according to the Supreme Court(Jan 2002) were all made after Chávez had already made his choice public: no "Consultative Referendum". This was the context leading to the concern over his Aló Presidente 128 words: the CNE received the signatures on Nov 5th amidst great violence from the supporters of the government [10] [11] while at the same time there was a "negotiation table" between the opposition and the governemnt mediated by César Gaviria [12] deciding on an electoral option for the crisis[13] and active officials opposing the President at the Plaza Altamira[14]. To some (1,574,233[15]), the best way to resolve the tense political situation was to bring forth an electoral event(Consultative Referendum) that would allow a way to empirically measure the support of the President. The President decided that regardless of any decision he was going to ignore other branches of government and 1.5 million people.(Caracas1830 20:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC))
I do assume your good faith, Caracas1830, but the video is propaganda. My reference to the misquotation article is not a personal attack (perhaps I should have said "you all"). It was only intended to provide elements showing the importance of context when quoting. JRSP 20:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
But you forgot the key part he did not say he was going to ignore the constitution. I do believe in democracy above republicanism, if the people say 180 of the what the constitution says I am all for the people, that said there are reservations with regards to WHEN should such a question be asked, in itself philosophically tricky, that said this is not philosophy but an article about Hugo Chavez and that quote is used with original research to posit what was said in critiscism article being: "This statement was one of the bases for claims that Chávez has dictatorial aims" Clearly POV clearly Original research and clearly full of holes since it was taken out of context.Flanker 21:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is Flanker again reverting this text out of all of the articles, when this discussion makes it clear that, not only is the context correct, the whole and complete story is even less in Chavez's favor? Why is Flanker deleting text rather than proposing fixes to it, to reflect his concerns? This kind of editing is not productive. Sandy 01:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Because the text violates the no original research policy as it "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source" JRSP 01:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
That is quite a stretch. What is says is referenced fact. He said he wouldn't go, even if 90% wanted him out, no matter what. That's as clear as can be, no matter how you try to twist the various legal definitions. What part of a direct quote is OR? Sandy 01:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The text is a synthesis of Chavez's opinions. The editor must provide a reliable source for the synthesis itself, and not the primary source used for the synthesis. This is against wp:nor.JRSP 02:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
How can a DIRECT quote of exactly what he said be a "synthesis"?
"Referendum to remove Chávez? That is not possible, don't waste time. I will not go in a referendum, I say that to the country and the world. It's like this: I won't go. ... Not even if we suppose that they hold that referendum and get 90% of the votes, I will not leave. Forget it. I will not leave." Exactly where is the original research. Please specify. Sandy 02:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The controversial text spans more than one full page of the original source (pp18-19). It is not a mere quotation but a synthesis given the level of compression. A synthesis of an original source is not OK. Instead, a reliable source of the synthesis is needed. JRSP 03:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
It is correct for the quote to be non-original research it has to not only be longer than quoted but the context should also be explained, if you want to put it up you have to do better than was up already which in this article in particular was original research (dictatorial aims) but also make it balanced, Sandy you have always stated that your goal with this quote was to show Chavez was not a democrat, despite it being years before the referendum (I know I should have checked) it has been proven that it was taken out of context (it was you that should have found and checked and linked the transcript for posting this not me) and the only way it can remain to show what you want is if it is removed from context which is unacceptable.Flanker 03:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
"así lo digo ante el país y ante el mundo" (I say that to the country and the world) is in lines 4-5, page 18 while "90%" is in line 15, page 19. We have a synthesis here, not a direct quote of exactly what he said. JRSP 03:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP

"Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia" [[16]] See [[17]], [[18]],[[19]].

Also remember that the banner is a reminder, the policy applies even if the banner is removed. JRSP 15:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the 3RR exception on BPL refers to criticism that is unsourced or poorly sourced only. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beware petitio principii

Petitio principii is a logical fallacy. The assumption "Chavez is a dictator" cannot be used as a ground to prove the same.JRSP 18:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Also beware argumentum verbosium. JRSP 21:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turned the article into a stub

After reading Wikipedias strict restrictions on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion the article cannot remain as an unbalanced piece waiting to be fixed it has to be deleted and then information added, I originally aired grieveneces with the balance months ago and feel it has not been fixed. Content has to be added now and it has to be done with strict adherence to the source specifically singling out Hugo Chavez for critiscism.Flanker 22:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the use of a tipical Argumentum ad nauseam technique.JRSP 22:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
It already survived AfD based on the fact that we were using Summary Style in the main article. THAT decision was later changed. All of the content can easily go back to the main article, since it's removal was architected from there, creating a POV fork. What criteria for a speedy do you think it meets, considering that 1) it already survived AfD, and 2) all of my efforts to merge the content back into Chavez have been resisted? Sandy 23:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
According to WP:CSD there are two separate nominations process:
"Articles that do not meet the speedy criteria may be nominated for the alternative deletion processes Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion."
This article met WP:CSD meaning it could be deleted entirely so I decided to stub it. The article cannot be merged into the mother article because that also violates WP:BLP due to proportionality. Flanker 23:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Flanker, the more reliable sources that are presented to uncover the story about Chávez, the more extreme your arguments to prevent NPOV editing have become. I'm sorry to see you taking such a radical approach to editing these articles: I'm wondering what is making Chávez supporters so nervous. You do NOT have a basis for blanking this article, particularly since you refuse to allow the content to be merged back into the main article, from whence it originated. Sandy 23:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
'There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.'
Comandante :-) Jimbo quoted by JRSP 00:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't come close to applying to this situation, since everything here has been referenced to reliable sources. It is the main article, and the pro-Chávez content, that relies on radical left-wing "I heard it somewhere" sources, to state claims that can't be found anywhere in the mainstream media. Sandy 00:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of the criticism situation

I moved all of the Criticism from the main article, Hugo Chávez, to here when we were engaged in a good faith, consensual effort to employ Summary Style. As a show of good faith, I started first with Criticism, exorcising all of it to here, and briefly summarizing it back to the main article.

Once I completed that, a group of editors decided: poof, enough Summary, the article is just the right length, no more summary, and Criticism can't come back to the main article, from whence it originated.

So, a POV fork was created, even though the Criticism article had survived an AfD, with the conclusion that it was NOT a POV fork, since we were shortening every area of the article.

A group of editors banned together to prevent referenced, sourced, verifiable Criticism from being brought back to the main Hugo Chávez article, and yet, have now blanked the criticism from the Criticism of Hugo Chávez article to which it was moved.

This doesn't seem like good faith editing, especially since it was through my efforts that the Criticism was removed. Further, the double standards that are being exercised here to prevent the introduction of NPOV into this article have reached alarming levels. Radical left-wing sources are accepted as "reliable", and are used extensively throughout the articles, while well-known, reliable sources documenting statements less favorable to Chávez are rejected via "majority rule". Rules well outside of Wiki policies and procedures are being enforced here by a band of editors: no reliable sources which may be criticial of Chávez, no speeches by anyone but Chávez, no direct quotes by anyone but Chávez, no sources that aren't available on the internet for all to read, etc. It seems that NPOV is no longer a goal of this article, and any and all obstacles will be put in place to prevent all sides of the Chávez story from being told. Sandy 00:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy please assume good faith, even if you plainly disagree, the rules did change yes, meaning that now the starting point has changed. Instead of a verbose unbalanced article we are starting from a stub. A lot of the article was in clear violation of WP:BLP meaning it was a candidate for WP:CSD instead I decided to stub it since it was the only neutral content I knew of. It cannot be merged back in to the mother article either.Flanker 00:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
You haven't presented a single example of something which violated BLP, and you have blanked extensively referenced content, while refusing to allow it back in the main article. You won't allow it in the main article, for balance, but you won't allow it in a separate article either. I can assume good faith, but this is not consensual NPOV editing: this is a double standard. Sandy 00:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
And beware of False dilemma. JRSP 00:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, sorry all for being completely inactive in the Hugo Chávez topic since some weeks ago, however I hope my opinion counts in this problem. I agree with Sandy in the sense that this issue has placed him without alternatives, as far as I can see, what is being asked here is to either delete the article—which was attempted already— or keep it as a stub, and include all the information that this article had in the parent article is not an option. I'm not going to get into which of solution is the right one, as I haven't read the guidelines much and I haven't followed the discussion closely, but what I'm sure of is that whatever is decided, the topic of criticism should be commented extensively. Criticism and opposition to Hugo Chávez is what has kept him as "one of the most complex and controversial figures in contemporary politics" and that cannot be left out nor it can be left as the three-paragraph stub that it is right now. If criticism is not allowed in a biographical article, then rename it to "Criticism to the presidency of Hugo Chávez", or find an alternative. Criticism simply can't be avoided, and a topic about criticism doesn't have to be POV'd if that is what some are worried about. --Enano275 01:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Critiscism will not be avoided a WP:Stub as defined is something that will be expanded upon, just from scratch and with rigorous standards. Also you cannot just change the name and attempt to loophole it since WP:BLP states that are related articles are treated equally. Even carmona decree and Sumate fell into that web apperantly.Flanker 01:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Carmona and Sumate fell into WP:BLP because you HAD used poor sources to level charges against Machado. That was NOT done here. Everything here was sourced. You were the only one violating BLP. Sandy 02:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Sumate had the most unbalanced quote about Chavez in all of the articles that were reverted a few days ago.Flanker 02:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
So this article was made a stub because it was POV or what? I don't get it. --Enano275 01:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:BLP Showed up, now all negative statment must be adequately referenced and say what is in the reference or all statements may be deleted aggresively.Flanker 02:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
BLP didn't "show up"; some of us followed it all along. Even if it weren't a policy, it's common sense. IF you're going to say something negative about someone, you'd better have a reliable source. You, on the other hand, insist on charges against Machado from a notably biased source, and that is where WP:BLP comes in. Sandy 02:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
You have it backwards Sandy, you found a source that said something entirely different, and you used it to reference and imply in your prose what you wanted. You still don't understand why WP:BLP exists it is for wikipedia to pass off responsibility to the source, meaning that if you paraphrase (like I did in the Machado piece) you are ok, and don't imply any more than what is referenced.Flanker 03:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
oh my gosh, you've got to be kidding. Sandy 03:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
No Sandy, read my example in the other thread, it has to say what it references even paraphrased, you cannot go into an inuendo tangent.Flanker 03:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The conversation has moved to Talk:Hugo Chávez. The content was blanked because Flanker generated yet another reason to avoid any Criticism of Chavez. He claims criticism violates the policies of unreferenced statements in BLP (biographies of living persons), but he ignores that everything here was well referenced to primary sources. Sandy 02:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Content

Please work with what you have rather than turning this article into a comparative stub. Some of the material may need work - but removing huge chunks is not the answer. --Zleitzen 05:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, I've restored the last Sandy full length version in 172 style . And have made a few amendments for starters, but there are still a few major issues here. Avoid joining the dots and stick to detailing notable crticisms. --Zleitzen 05:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If the article can be restored 99% of what it said originally but under the strict standards of WP:BLP I would have no problem with it, I will still remove all of what does not pass off responsibility to a reliable source.Flanker 14:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I started to delete what is not directly said on the reference and the prose, no more original research if the article accuses the courts then it is not a critiscism against him, ditto for the AN, the implicit accounts that he is totalitarian cannot continue unless referenced. And if an accusation was made it cannot be used as an excuse to level all charges against the individual, Venezuela is a big place, learn to differentiate.Flanker 15:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
For an example of what is allowed on WP:BLP (It is missing neutrality but everything in there conforms to the above) read Foreign policy critiscism, every attack is directed specifically at Chavez and every negative comment made by Chavez is there sourced and in context.Flanker 15:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Removed all of the fundamental rights the only one that stayed was the ICC lawsuit because Hugo Chavez was a defendant, that is the tipe of explicit reference that is allowed.Flanker 15:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is now mostly removed of the worst offenders it still needs balance and I am leaving the tag, but at a glance I have removed aggressively and without discussion every poorly referenced prose per WP:BLP (giving a general link does not give the right to expand on the subject in the prose it now has to be specific). If I see more later it will be subject to the same standard.Flanker 15:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Class and racial hatred and violence

Does it make sense to have a whole seccion just for the "antisemitism" tale? It looks now like "no matter it's false, but use big letters for the headlines". JRSP 03:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an excellent point. Nor does the question of antisemitism seem to belong under the heading of Foreign Policy; this would only make sense under the aegis of the false equation of anti-Israel with anti-semite OR if Chavez was, e.g., baring Jews from emigrating, or making antisemitic stipulation on his foreign aid or some such thing. The issue of his alleged antisemitism seems to belong under personal criticisms.--Adynatoniac (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flanker blanking of article

Flanker, you are systemically blanking the article of referenced text again. You don't seem to have a good understaning of WP:BLP. Please refrain. Good faith efforts at working with you seem to have stalled, and I am wondering if it is time to ask that you be blocked from editing these articles. Sandy 16:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I already responded in the other talk page, I have adhered to policy to the letter. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page.Flanker 16:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
"Poorly sourced" is a very fuzzy term but I think it applies (among other things) to a reliable source that does not fully support a claim that can be interpreted as a negative innuendo.JRSP 17:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but under no definition in USA law will you be able to argue that statements in multiple mainstream reliable media sources are "poorly sourced". This is a desperate overinterpretation of BLP, to prevent any criticism of Chavez. Sandy 18:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Lets follow in the other page, you did the exact same thing on Maria Corina Machado, and I support your deletion, the standards for critiscism has been raised to very high standards.Flanker 19:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. The MCM allegations ARE poorly-sourced, and from biased sources, unlike everything written about Chavez, which is backed by multiple reliable sources. Sandy 19:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
No Sandy it is the same, you write a whole paragraph linking Chavez to corruption with innuendos like "corruption reaching to high levels of government" yet it hides the most key paragraph and in essence what is related to Hugo Chavez why it should be here in the first place, THAT is an extremely poor reference. The oposition's claim that Chavez is responsible for Venezuelan corruption is not good enough for wikipedia under current standards, it has to be related to Chavez. Sandy take off your tinted glasses,I personally believe that the most damaging act to MCM democracy public face is her signature of the decree, since it was not paraphrased as the article says it should be removed from WP:BLP If I can see why can't you? Is it that personal with Chavez? Flanker 19:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
"I personally believe" that somebody did so and so. Good idea, Flanker! JRSP 20:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

<<< A suggestion to editors:

  • Attribute each and every critical statement, rather than make assertion of facts based on a source. For example:
According to an a newspaper article that appeared in The Washington Post, a program called "Mission Identity", to fast track voter registration of immigrants to Venezuela — including Chávez supporters benefiting from his subsidies — has been put in place prior to the upcoming 2006 presidential elections.
  • Rather than:
A program called "Mission Identity", to fast track voter registration of immigrants to Venezuela — including Chávez supporters benefiting from his subsidies — has been put in place prior to the upcoming 2006 presidential elections.
  • Do not editorialize. Cite what the source says and avoid making interpretations, innuendo or conclusions.
  • Give readers the opportunity to know who the source is. Criticism of political figures is usually based on the specific worldview of the critic. Dont say "XYZ is this and that". Say: "According to ABC, a prominent critic of XYZ from political party TRS, XYZ is this and that"
  • Describe only that criticism that is published by reliable sources.

Hope this helps. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly right. We should avoid making assumptions based on a source. Stay as close to the source as possible.--Zleitzen 16:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Fully agree.Flanker 21:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Copying over Jossi's full response to here:

[edit] Misinterpretation of BLP

What is going to be the process for reporting misinterpretation or abuse of WP:BLP? Since editors employing it are exempt from 3RR, where will removal of material referenced to reliable sources be reported?

I understand the necessity of aggressively combatting unsourced innuendo and negative criticism about living persons, but this policy is being used to remove text, referenced to reliable sources, from Criticism of Hugo Chávez. It is impossible to re-add referenced text without engaging in a revert war, since the editors deleting the text are convinced they are exempt from 3RR.

Here are some short examples:

A program called "Mission Identity", to fast track voter registration of immigrants to Venezuela — including Chávez supporters benefiting from his subsidies — has been put in place prior to the upcoming 2006 presidential elections.
Bronstein, H. (June 14, 2006), "Colombians in Venezuela thank Chavez for new life". Washington Post, Accessed 22 June 2006. (An online copy can be found here.)
Human rights organization Amnesty International has catalogued a number of human rights violations under Chávez.
Amnesty International. (AI, 2005). "AI Summary Report 2005: Venezuela". Retrieved 01 Nov 2005.
Amnesty International reports that Venezuela lacks an independent and impartial judiciary, and the U.S. State Department says there is unchecked concentration of power in the executive and the legal system.
Amnesty International (2006), "AI Report 2006: Venezuela". Accessed 22 June 2006.
U.S. Department of State (December 1, 2005). "The State of Democracy in Venezuela". Accessed 18 June 2006.

So, where are questions about the applicability of WP:BLP raised, and where does one take 3RR issues if the editors believe they are exempt from 3RR? Strong application of this policy is unquestionably necessary; but the potential for abuse in order to stifle referenced criticism is also a problem. Can the wording be tightened up to make it clear that text referenced to reliable sources is not subject to 3RR, and will there be a means of addressing misinterpretation of WP:BLP? Sandy 15:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR exception on BPL refers to criticism that is "unsourced or poorly sourced". The examples you provided do not fall within the scope of that exception. Note that the first example needs attribution, otherwise it reads as an assertion of fact. You could NPOV that as follows:
According to an a newspaper article that appeared in The Washington Post, a program called "Mission Identity", to fast track voter registration of immigrants to Venezuela — including Chávez supporters benefiting from his subsidies — has been put in place prior to the upcoming 2006 presidential elections.]
≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the help and suggestions. But, I still have the question: if the editor persists in reverting, and believes he is exempt from 3RR, where does it get reported? At 3RR? I can see this becoming a tricky policy question, if editors claim exemption from 3RR. Sandy 16:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Report at WP:ANI/3RR, or pursue the actions outlined in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again. Sandy 16:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

So, Flanker, you have some text to re-instate, and you broke the references, so please fix them. If you again remove referenced text, it will be a problem. Also, it has been pointed out to me that "blanking" was not the correct term, and I apologize for using that word incorrectly. Apparently "blanking" is only used to describe vandalism, where what you did was merely an inappropriate removal of referenced text. I did not know that meaning of "blanking", and I apologize for any unintended implications. Sandy 04:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What text in particular do you want to reinstate? I was never against re-adding stuff just that it has to be specific, with little to no editorializing nor innuendos, the text was deleted and can only return once it meets the criteria of WP:BLP check the progress made in the article and the talk page for details.Flanker 05:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Lets take for example the Human rights statements:

Human rights organization Amnesty International has catalogued a number of human rights violations under Chávez.
Amnesty International. (AI, 2005). "AI Summary Report 2005: Venezuela". Retrieved 01 Nov 2005.

Is an editorialized statement done to make Chavez look totalitarian He is not in control nor is he accused of in that article of being responsible for A)Isolated bad seeds/corrupt security forces do, nor B)Made the investigations inadecuate or slow. The only time he is referenced either by name, president or head of the executive was cristiscising his comments on his opinion of human rights reporters and the consequences it will lead to. This is not a whitewashing technicality either before 2004 a great deal of the police forces were under oposition control.

If this is to be allowed under WP:BLP it has to be exactly what the article states, not editorials that imply he is responsible for all of the human rights abuses that take place in the country. Since he was President.

If it makes it easier to visualize in the Bush article he should not be accused (and nobody does which is wikipedia I guess) for jailing Judith Miller doing so would not only imply he is in control of the judiciary, and not a very smart dude.Flanker 05:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of sourced criticisms

WGee, you've removed a load of sourced criticisms. I took a look at a few and they were legitimate. For instance, the BBC piece on Chavez's travel arrangments in Iran etc.--Zleitzen 00:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but did you see my reason for removing it? WP:BLP states: "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." And clearly the mentioning of Chavez's excursions to Iran and Libya in an article about criticism are intended to imply guilt by association. Also, are diplomatic disputes really pertinent in a criticism article? They don't seem like criticism, per se. I think they are more appropriate for the Hugo Chavez article. And they're actually already there. -- WGee 01:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
OK. Let's take the Libya trip for starters. That was criticised by the Movement for Socialism (Venezuela) and is clearly sourced (I don't know if you can read Spanish). They claim that Chavez had pre-planned a trip to Libya but didn't mention it to the National Assembly for authorisation. Now re-read that BBC article - there are notable criticisms at the foot of the page along similar lines are there not? These are legitimate criticisms that belong on this page. If a leader is accused of deceiving parliament and a notable source covers this, then that is the basis of this page. --Zleitzen 02:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Well having read the Iran bit in particular I do believe it does not conform to WP:BLP since none of the articles themselves point out the critiscism but rather just detail the visit creating guilt by association in the prose, I am shocked that there is not a single article (not even the US department) critiscizing the Iranian relationship, it should be VERY easy to find. Take for example my addition a few days ago about NK:
Chávez's trips abroad have also caused some critiscism within his own coalition. For example, in July 2006 the National Assembly refused to ratify a trip to North Korea.[1] The BBC reports that Chávez has spent 365 days abroad since taking office.[1]
  1. ^ a b Morsbach, Greg. (BBC news 24 July 2006). Chavez tour piques US interest. Retrieved 24 July 2006
Every critiscism is taken from the BBC article, and I believe this is what conforms to WP:BLP it is not guilt by association rather a real specific critiscism of Chavez about a foreign affair. Or at least that is how I view WP:BLP guidelines. Flanker 02:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I admit that I was bit hasty and overzealous in my original deletion. The Iran, Libya, and North Korea affairs do have specific criticisms attached to them, so, yes, they are acceptable. But the paragraphs about the diplomatic disputes (the ones with Mexico and Peru) did not have specific criticisms attached to them; they were mere descriptions of the disputes. Those disputes themselves do not constitute criticism and are already extensively covered in their appropriate articles. Moreover, we shouldn't include criticism made by Chavez against other presidents, since this article is about criticism against Chavez.
Basically, all sources in this article should directly and specifically criticize Hugo Chavez or mention criticism of him. If a source isn't intended to be criticism, but just a neutral report, we shouldn't use it against him. For example, if the BBC reports that "Hugo Chavez did x", it's not making an actual criticism of him and therefore should not be used, no matter how questionable a Wikipedia editor might find the event. But if the BBC reports that "Hugo Chavez did x, and therefore harmed Venezuela's democracy," the BBC is making a specific criticism of him and the report is acceptable to use. The only purpose of this article is to relay already-made criticsm, not to list any of Chavez's actions we may find questionable. Agreed? Just making sure we're all on the same page, here.
-- WGee 03:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand exactly what you mean. But please be careful on that trigger and keep the material where the source states X criticised Chavez for this reason. Mass removals and then swift edits can make it difficult to backtrack and reinstate material that has been removed in error.--Zleitzen 03:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I declare myself guilty, I put some material recently and added my own interpretation it was "sexist" although this is not mentioned in the source. I will remove the paragraph now JRSP 16:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avoid weasel words

Please count how many times "critics say" something in this article. Who are those critics? Be specific.--JRSP 02:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It would destroy the flow of the article to introduce text like The Economist says, or The BBC says when that information is given in the references. Every statement is referenced, so it is clear who the critics are. If there is a specific statement that you think needs further explanation, please indicate here and I will fix it. I'm removing the weasle tags, since statements are sourced, and who the critics are should be clear from the sources. Sandy 00:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
in some cases, weasel words can be used, but I think in must cases a critisism sounds more reliable without them. I will put "who" tags from time to time, instead of using the banner. I will restore the POV banner instead JRSP 00:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The article is, after all, titled Criticism, so objecting to "critics say" (when the statements were referenced), was petty anyway. So, now you think you need a POV tag? Do you just think the article has to be tagged, or do you have some good reason for that? Please note that if you want to call if POV, I'll be very happy to merge all the text back to the main article, where it belongs anyway, so we won't have a POV fork. That's fine with me. Sandy 00:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I think an article on critisism is fine, the main article is too big. The banner will help this not to become a POV fork. Remember you removed it a few days ago because there were "too many banners" JRSP 00:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The main article is too big? Good, I'll work on that, so we have room for Criticism. I'm not happy with a POV fork, and since you insist on tagging the article, we need to address that. By the way, you can't put a label on an article to *prevent* it from becoming POV. That is deliberately harming Wiki. Either spell out all of the POV that you want addressed, or remove the tag. Sandy 00:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The desicion of making daughter articles was made when Saravask was editing. Although WP is not paper, long loading times of articles should be avoided JRSP 01:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Please explain the POV tag, or remove it. If this is not a POV fork, because daughter articles are better, than remove the tag. Placing a tag on a Wiki article "just because" amounts to intentionally harming Wikipedia. Also long loading time is an absolete argument, and what applied when Saravask wrote the articles no longer applies. Sandy 01:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
See WP:SIZE. The article also seems too anti-Chavez right now JRSP 01:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
JRSP, I look at FACs and FARs all day long. I don't need to be referred to WP:SIZE. Chavez needs to have the verbosity cut from the top, the bottom updated, and criticism merged. Plain and simple.

Are you going to explain the POV tag or remove it? Good faith editing requires you to explain a tag. Sandy 03:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think an article on critisism is fine, the main article is too big. The banner will help this not to become a POV fork. JRSP has still not explained his POV tag. POV tags are not placed on articles "preventatively"; that is disruptive editing. On the one hand, he argues that the main article is too large and criticism can't be merged back into it, so he can't argue on the same hand that this article is a POV fork. Neutrality would be obtained by moving the criticism back to the main article. If he won't allow it back in the main article, he can't say this is a POV fork. I'm removing the tag, since he has given no rational for placing it. Sandy 13:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rude editing

JRSP, I'd like to remind you not only of Wikietiquette, but of a smidgen of Venezuelan manners. Would you mind being respectful of your fellow editors and placing all of the text you delete, including references, on talk pages for discussion? Or do you enjoy creating extra work for your fellow editors? You obliterate text which you know can be referenced to reliable sources, without the courtesy of removing it to the talk page, so that others won't have to go back in diffs to re-construct the content you delete. Please assume some respect for other editors in your editing practices; I would not want to think you are intentionally disrupting Wiki and making it harder for other editors to reconstruct what you remove willy-nilly because you don't want to take the time find the sources, or to simply put a cite tag on the statements. Thank you, Sandy 23:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text to source

Economists Ricardo Hausmann of Harvard University and Roberto Rigobón of the MIT Sloan School of Management performed a statistical analysis at Súmate's request, analyzing how fraud could have occurred during the referendum. They concluded that the vote samples audited by the government were not a random representation of all precincts, noting that the Chávez-backed CNE had "refused to use the random number generating program offered by the Carter Center for the August 18th audit and instead used its own program installed in its own computer and initialed with their own seed." They also noted that opposition witnesses and international observers were not allowed near the computer hub on election day.[1] CEPR, a liberal think tank[2] based in Washington, reports that other economists have called the Harvard/MIT assumptions about how the alleged fraud was conducted unlikely.[1]

JRSP 23:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Source provided, which you deleted. The same source you use. Please do not delete referenced text. Please begin to practice some Wiki etiquette in your editing practices. Thank you, Sandy 23:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. My mistake JRSP 23:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Apology accepted. Sandy 23:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

During Chávez's presidency, from 1999 to 2004, per-capita GDP dropped 1–2 %[3], but with the help of rising oil prices, the end of the oil strike, and strong consumption growth, recent economic activity under Chávez has been robust,[4][5][6]

I do not find wording in the sources about end of oil strike, etc -- deleted those phrases. Maybe someone else can find them. Looks like original research. Sandy 23:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Free Speech

Spaceriqui, thanks for doing that: it was on my list for today. Some of it isn't quite referenced, though, so it sounds like editorializing or original research. Even though *we* know it's all true, it needs to be written based on reliable sources, so I'm placing a copy of the whole thing here (so we can continue to work on it, as we find the sources), and I'm going to remove from the actual article the parts that aren't referenced. I also have a number of referenced statements that I can add in. I just wanted to put a copy of the whole thing here, as other deletionist editors may just chunk the whole thing. The first paragraph is problematic, since it's not referenced at all. As we find references, we can add things back in.

Except for the first paragraph, I think every sentence comes from the cited sources at the end of each paragraph. I bet you can cite the same sources for the first paragraph though... --Spaceriqui 01:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to look at it yet, and I left it all in the article. I just wanted to have a copy here in case JRSP deletes the whole thing, since there's no ref on the first paragraph. There is so much serious criticism of Chavez in the press now that it is going to be hard to pare it down and structure it. Sandy 01:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Free speech

As opposition to Chávez grew, owners, managers, commentators, and other personnel affiliated with private mainstream television networks and most major mainstream newspapers stated their opposition to the Chávez administration. These media accuse the Chávez administration of intimidation and censorship. Chávez in turn alleges that the owners of these networks have primary allegiance to Venezuela's elite and U.S. interests.

During the Venezuelan coup attempt of 2002, domestic and international observers criticized the Government for excessive abuse of its right to call national broadcasts requiring all broadcast media to cease scheduled programming and transmit the broadcasts in their entirety. Between April 9 and 11, the government required all radio and TV stations to transmit numerous speeches by President Chávez, other government officials, and other programming favorable to the Government, even shutting the signals of the stations who refused, in an attempt to block coverage of the demonstrations and ensuing violence.[7]

The freedom of the press is seriously threatened in Venezuela according to various journalism organizations. According to the International Press Institute and the Inter-American Press Association, the administration of President Hugo Chávez tightened its grip on the press in 2005, while groups close to the government, including the Bolivarian Circles, hampered journalists’ ability to report. President Chávez’s government introduced harsher penalties for libel, defamation and insult, which resulted in a growing number of journalists appearing before the courts. The National Assembly approved by a simple majority the controversial Law on the Social Responsibility of Radio and Television, or gag law, which, in effect, makes the private radio and television system part of the state, which controls its schedules, programs and content.[8][9][10]

The freedom of the press is secured by two key clauses in Chávez' Constitution of Venezuela of 1999. The right to freedom of expression is set out in Article 57 and Article 58 of the Constitution. The right to express opinions freely without censorship (Article 57) and the right to reply (Article 58) are generally in line with international standards. However, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) expressed concern about Article 58 of the Constitution, which provides that "Everyone has the right to timely, truthful, impartial and uncensored information." The Commission took issue with the right to "truth and timely" information arguing that this is "a kind of prior censorship prohibited in the American Convention on Human Rights."[11]

In 2005, Reporters Without Borders ranked Venezuela 90th out of 167 countries in its global press freedom listing.[12] Freedom House rates Venezuela as "Partly Free" according to its 2005 global survey "Freedom in the World".[13]

Sandy 13:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole section is unbalanced dealing with only accusations and no counterpoints.Flanker 19:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
If you are aware of any reliable-sourced counterpoints, please do add them. I'm not aware of any reliable sources saying anything different. If an article says, "the sky is blue", are we obligated to present a counterbalancing argument for "the sky is green" or "the sky is purple", and to give those views equal weight, or any weight? Sandy 19:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Considering that we cannot even agree on the color of the sky says more about us than anything... that said all accusations should have a counter-point if available, and IMHO they are valid counterpoints. The media is the most critical media anywhere, the cries of censorship of any form ring extremely hollow when a program like this can go on the radio waves without any punishment at all [20].Flanker 20:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
As soon as you find reliable sources diagreeing with any of the criticism, please do add them. I'll give you some time before removing the unbalanced tag, since you've been away, but putting an unbalanced tag if there is no rebuttal isn't good faith editing. I'm sorry you think the sky is green; that view doesn't get equal weight on Wiki. Your example above is original research: find reliable sources. Sandy 20:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I personally think purple is a better choice, that said the unbalanced tag on the mother article has been there since forever and this is orders of magnitude worse, I believe it should remain until the balance issue is fully fixed.Flanker 23:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree the article is very unbalanced. I put the banner a few days ago and someone removed it JRSP 23:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
YOu can't just tag something without saying how to fix it. No one yet has explained any information that is left out of this article, or how to fix it. Tagging without suggestions of what needs to be fixed is gratuitous. Again, you can't object because the article give no weight to "the sky is green." The unbalanced and POV tags on the main article are VERY well detailed on the talk page, and instead of working on them, we waste time reconstructing deletionist and obstructionist editing. Perhaps you can remember the days before those practices started, when we got a lot of work done daily, regularly crossed items off the list, and worked on the basis of consensus rather than "gotcha"? Remember, the criticism article is a fork at *your* insistence: you won't let content be integrated into the main article. Then you can't also cry that it's unbalanced and a POV fork, particularly when you don't say why, where, or what is missing. Sandy 23:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
You fix it by providing a balanced account, I personally read all of the accounts and they are ALL critiscism and open ended without resolution, most if not all of the cases were resolved without jail sentences or punishment of any kind, and there are only one pending IIRC and that is Patricia Poleo accused of assasination. It also paints a warped picture of reality, the media is the definition of an attack watchdog (most specifically TV and radio), not even Air America compares, although it is much better than it was before. It also fails to mention Chavez quotes regarding not wanting to jail journalists and offering pardons. Also I never really touched this article before the major changes, this article should not be 100% criticism, it has to be as close to 50% critisicsm and 50% counte-critiscism. That way we avoid it being a POV fork.Flanker 00:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not an acceptable argument. You might not like what the article says, but that doesn't make it unbalanced. Criticism is criticism. Please stop giving us your original research, and either provide some reliable sources which dispute the criticism, or remove the unbalanced tag. It is not your, mine, or anyone else's opinion that matters. What criticism do you want rebutted, and where are the reliable sources to back up the rebuttal? What exactly do you want fixed in the article? If you don't have a concise list, based on reliable sources, then you are only basing your objection on opinion and original research. I cannot give you a 50% counter-criticism to the sky is blue. There is not 50% support for the sky is green. If the article is unbalanced, it is only because you refuse to allow it into the main article, where it would be balanced. That has been your choice. You cannot label this article unbalanced or a POV fork when *you all* refuse to allow it to balance the main article. Sandy 01:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this sky is blue/green simile is falacious. There is a difference between a consensual truth and a matter of opinion. This article is clearly biased against Chávez JRSP 01:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The main article is actually balanced and adding this would tip it over greatly, the oposite of critiscism is praise and I don't see that anywhere in wikipedia, a statment of fact is not praise, that the economy grew is not praise. This article is chock full of critisciscm and while it is supposed to be about critiscism it should not be devoid of counter-critiscism to provide balance, re: the tag I asked the same thing about the mother article weeks ago [21] and nobody responded and the tag is still there. Flanker 02:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crime reports to UN

Moved from article for discussion:

Venezuela's government stopped sending to the United Nations complete statistics about the murder rate from 2002 onwards. [22]

User:AndresDominguez

Sandy 13:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The resources can be found by checking at the crime statistics provided by all countries. Venezuela's figures (check that link and the different surveys) stopped being detailed in 2002. And see this, after having checked the pdf files with the reports on crime statistics for all countries. The figures for Venezuela are just not shown after 2002. http://www.el-nacional.com/entrevistas/Detalle.asp?IdEntrevista=23&IdEntrevistado=17

Thanks, Andrés. As I mentioned on your talk page WP:BLP is a strictly enforced policy on Wiki, which means criticism must be well sourced. The problem is in the wording: Venezuela's government stopped sending ... The fact that the statistics aren't shown on the UN's page gives us no means of backing up the statement or knowing that the data isn't shown because the government isn't sending it. The interview with Marcos Tarre doesn't seem to back it up either. Do you see the problem? Sandy 17:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chacon resignation request

I can't find a source for this either:

During his presidency, Chávez has had six Ministers of Interior and Justice. Due to widespread discontent, Chávez recently called on the latest Minister, Jesse Chacón to quit if he could not do the job. Another former military man, Francisco Ameliach, is being considered as a possible substitute.

Sandy 13:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

He actually said so in an "alo" some time ago. Let me see if I can source it because showing Chávez concerns for the crime problem would help balancing this section. The Ameliach part can be left out because this was some time ago and Chacón is still in charge JRSP 14:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks ! Sandy 14:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Is a page about criticism something where people have to put supposed proofs of Chavez concerns? What does it mean to 'balance' a section talking about a given position? It is good to find sources, but trying to put Chavez opinion here is, in my opinion, not appropiate. User:AndresDominguez

Have a look at WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS. Even when we all know something to be true, we can't add it to Wiki unless it comes from a reliable source. We can only report what reliable sources say. Sandy 17:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I found this [23]. It's more recent, not exactly the same case, but similar. JRSP 14:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
If you want, I can work that text in (after my morning appointment). What are "latifundios"? Between the way Chavez speaks, and the fact that the Venezuelan press can't say anything directly or outright because of freedom of press limitations, I find these articles so hard to read. But I can work in the part about Chacon and crime ...
El Presidente, que también exigió más rigor en la lucha contra la corrupción, afirmó que hay que limpiar y transformar a las policías regionales a propósito del atentado que sufrió el dirigente campesino y diputado de la AN, Braulio Alvarez. Chávez cuestionó la impunidad que existe en el país e instó a autoridades como el ministro del Interior y Justicia, Jesse Chacón, y el director del Cuerpo de Investigaciones Científicas, Penales y Criminalísticas, Marcos Chávez, a renunciar si no podían dar "esa lucha". Además, les solicitó proteger a los dirigentes campesinos que intentan recuperar latifundios y que han sido agredidos por el sicariato. Chávez demanded more rigor in the fight against corruption, affirming in August 2006 the need to clean up and transform the local police forces. Following the death of (???), he questioned the impunity that exists in the country, and challenged authorities, like Chacón, to resign if they couldn't make progress in the battle. ( ??? part about latifundios ... ????) Diaz, Sara Carolina. Chávez exige acabar con latifundios. El Universal (7 August 2006).
I'll look at your new source (below) after Dr. appt. Sandy 14:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Latifundio is a big land property JRSP 18:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Also found this for Ameliach [24] but it is a speculation. JRSP 14:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
About ministers:

There is not a page from the government where they say 'hey, this is the list of all the ministers we had selected of the Interior and Justice'. You need to take that from many different sources here and there and do the maths. The fact cannot be denied, though:

  • Ignacio Arcaya:

http://www.analitica.com/vas/1999.08.2/sintesis/

  • Luis Miquelena:

http://www.caretas.com.pe/2005/1857/articulos/farc.html

  • Luis Alfonso Davila

http://www.mpd.gov.ve/prog-gob/decretos/d_924.htm

  • Diosdado Cabello

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diosdado_Cabello http://www.analitica.com/va/sociedad/libertad/8097547.asp

  • Lucas Rincon Romero

http://www.rnv.gov.ve/noticias/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=5115

  • Jese Chacon: still minister

I will look for an article where the statistics on crime are also mentioned. The pdfs of United Nations's crime reports located in the link I provided show how the murders in Venezuela dramatically rise from 1998 until 2002. Then they simply are not provided in the latest reports. AndresDominguez

I think we've already covered the crime stats pretty well, but if you have detailed information, it may be helpful. The reason I removed the list of names of all six ministers is that the actual names aren't highly relevant to the point you're making, which is that Chávez often changes ministers. Adding the names of each minister overburdens the article with too much detail. I have another source which makes the point you want to make (about his excessive number of cabinet changes), so I can add that if you want ? Sandy 17:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I see your point, Sandy. Thanks for your work.

Andres

[edit] Criticism?

Moved from article

In August, 2006, following reported differences with Chávez during his recent international tour, Presidential Secretary Delcy Rodríguez was replaced by Adán Chávez, the brother of Hugo Chávez. Adán Chávez had previously been the ambassador to Cuba.[14]

I cannot read any criticism in source JRSP 09:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You're kidding, right ? Sandy 10:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
What is the criticism? What does a cabinet member change has to do with "authoritarian rule and power consolidation" ? JRSP 19:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I expanded and re-titled, per your request. Sandy 19:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
"Authoritarian" and "chaos" seem to contradict each other JRSP 19:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-semitism

JRSP, you inserted a Rangel defense against charges of Chávez anti-semitism. I have searched the English-language press for a denial of anti-semitism from Chávez, and have found none. The only statement I found was from the Las Vegas Sun, which said, "A spokeswoman for his office said it had no immediate response to the complaint." [25] While the charges of anti-semitism are throughout the press, I am unable to find any denial from Chávez. Perhaps you can search the Spanish-language press and find a rebuttal directly from Chávez ? I am not that good at using the Spanish press search engines. Sandy 13:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

JRSP, can you please back up your edit summary that Rangel is an official spokesperson for Chávez? Thanks, Sandy 14:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The article is still seriously POV

There is 0 balance in it, this article is again a POV fork. Counter-critiscism is badly needed already started with the election fraud accusation pointing out what really happened as oposed to opinion (which granted is critiscism)Flanker 02:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

And, in spite of being asked for weeks, if not months, to provide a list of what is POV, what is missing, what is biased, what is not included, you have not done so. IF it is a POV fork, it is so at your insistence, because you refuse to allow criticism in the main article. You have never indicated a single counter-criticism that is missing or issue that is not covered. Just because you don't like what the article says, you can't label it POV. As to it being a POV fork, I am all in favor of merging the content back to the main article, if you believe it is a fork. Sandy 02:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I think putting in the article every single criticism of HC is making an unreadable page. Perhaps if the article contained the most relevant and well sourced criticism it would be better. Sometimes less is more JRSP 03:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Read up, and see how the content grows. Because the two of you object to every single word, simple sentences grow in answer to your objections. Instead of discussing content on talk pages, you both engage at times in "gotcha" editing (like Flanker deleting entire pages, and your cleansing in the name of BLP). Further, it isn't realistic to ignore the massive amounts of criticism of Chavez in the press every day, considering that he has appeared to intentionally attract criticism as part of his domestic and foreign policy. He makes the headlines daily, right along with Iran et al, and appears to revel in the attention. His presidential campaign is launched as Chavez against Bush. That's his polemic.
A summary of critical items is still needed in the main article. Until that is done, the detail belongs here. The fact that there is so much critcism of Chavez is not the article's fault. I'm still waiting for either of you to point to a single missing rebuttal. Chavez may not have an answer to some of the criticism, but that is not the article's fault either. For example, I asked in another article for Chavez's answer to charges against him of anti-semitism: it seems he hasn't given one. I guess he doesn't consider it important enough to respond? How can we balance facts with a vacuum? If there is no counter-claim, do you want the article to argue that the sky is green? Sandy 03:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
This article clearly violates WP:BLP#Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors. The WP:SIZE guideline should also be checked as the article is near 100Kb JRSP 04:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
You cited "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." Do you really believe criticism of Chavez is a minority view? What news media do you watch and read? Sandy 05:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
In other words, you still don't have a POV list. You object to the size of this article, but Flanker et al refuse to let us cut down the main article, which is exceedingly verbose, much too long, and needs to utilize Summary Style. You complain about criticism here, but refuse to allow it to be integrated into a streamlined main article. Again, what is the case ? The main article should be reduced, and criticism should be incorporated. Whenever you all are ready to start working via consensus, I've always been ready. Remember, we were working together towards that plan when I removed all the criticism from the main article to here, because by consensus we were going to trim the main article and use Summary Style throughout. As soon as I completed the good faith work of removing the criticism from the main article to here, Flanker and company changed the plan: no more Summary Style, but criticism stays banished to a separate article. In other words, *if* there is an unbalanced fork, it's because they demanded it that way. Anytime you want to trim and move it back, and work together via consensus, we should start that work. Sandy 04:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I always quote the one about desproportionate critiscism, Sandy the main article is fine I have already stated why it is not even balanced, since praise is really not mentioned much at all. The problem is that when you add incredibly verbose paragraphs to show what a critic opines and that violates WP:BLP Why can't critiscism follow a factual path? as much as I found the irrelevancy of the overvaluation of the Bolivar (which is still not what you think it is) I still left it because it was a fact.Flanker 05:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
How can criticism follow a factual path when you keep introducing original research? If you think the main article is fine, then this article is fine. The main article is pages of verborse outdated history in praise of Chavez, with no balance or criticism; you exorcised the criticism to here. Your intransigence has created what you now call a POV fork, because you refuse to allow the main article to be trimmed and balanced, and you object to ANY and ALL criticism of Chavez. Sandy 05:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Just because you percieve it is praise does not mean it is. this is praise:[26] and this [27] Yet they are hardly found in the article. That he is democratically elected is not praise it is a fact. That poverty dropped it is not praise it is a fact, yes you found a critic on the internet that can claim anything it wants without fearing irrelevancy, It still is critical OPINION since they NEVER provide evidence of statistical shenanigans. Flanker 05:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
And, there's the problem. You just cited two "facts" which aren't facts at all, but very much open to interpretation. Because you are completely unable to view Chavez objectively, you refuse to allow the articles to be trimmed and written objectively. Some say he was democratically elected, others say he rigged the system to stay in power. You say poverty dropped, many say it was merely redefined, and there are more people living worse. You are unable to recognize that there are two sides to this story, and that's why these articles are absurdly long. When YOU misinterpret something that is not a fact as a fact, you turn it into bias, by not presenting both sides. And please stop trying to hoist the word "prasie" on us: this is an encylopedia, not a fan website for Chavez. It's not about criticism and praise: it's about presenting all sides of the story, with balance, but you don't even see that there is more than one side of the story. Sandy 05:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, actually this article looks more like a bashing page JRSP 05:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Which is why the content here should be summarized and merged into the main article, in context. And, if you think what the reliable sources have to say about Chavez is "bashing", that's a reflection of your bias. I see the content as reliable source reports. The economy is in trouble, democracy is compromised, power has been consolidated, etc., is not "bashing"; it's reporting things as they are. Sandy 06:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried fixing the election fraud accusations, the next step is to condense the authoritarian claims. Do we really need quotes upon quotes about what other people think? it baffles me how on the main article things like unemployment are given a single sentence but people saying the same thing over and over (dictator, tyrant etc) gets paragraphs upon paragraphs and quotes. Why can't you just say something like this:

"Critics have labelled the government as not democratic (US State Dept) dictator (Foreign mag) tyrant (whoever that was), while supporters claim he empowers the poor majority and has won 8 elections (will find article if needed)"

That would be something more NPOV (balance praise with critiscism) and it would also not enter a WP:BLP range of giving critics all of the article itself, which is policy. Flanker 05:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You're asking a silly question, Flanker, because you know the answer. Unless any criticism of Chavez says *exactly* what the source says, you delete it. You change it. You expand it. You cause a simple concept to grow to point and counterpoint. For example, obviously the Venezuelan economy is in very serious trouble, only being propped up by the oil windfall, according to multiple sources on multiple counts. That is something we should be able to summarize in about three sentences. But, you refuse to accept the truth in spite of an abundance of evidence from multiple sources, you refuse to let it be said simply, so instead, we have a book of point and counterpoint, all addressing the original research you introduce. What you are asking for above is exactly where we were headed many months ago - towards a simple brief summary of the issues. I did the work. I removed the criticism. I started doing the brief summaries. Then you joined forces with WGee and decide no more summary. You have driven these article's sizes by obstructionist editing, and refusing to allow for concise summaries of the issues. Go back and read the main article talk page if you've forgotten when that change occurred, and what your role in it was. As I've always said, anytime you're ready to start trimming the main article, utilizing Summary Style, and including ALL sides of the story there for balance, I'm ready to go back to work. The main article needs to be cut down, Summary Style should be used, and criticism should be balanced throughout the article, not pushed aside to a separate article or to one section. And we shouldn't have to quote every gory detail to get you to accept a few lines summarizing things like, the economy is in trouble. Just as I shouldn't have to end up writing an entire section because JRSP doesn't understand the problem with Chavez putting his brother as a Minister - it started as one sentence, remember, but JRSP objected it right into an entire section. All of this came about when you stopped working towards consensual editing, employing gotcha editing and bullying. Sandy 05:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Dumping into the article every single criticism will only lead us to a mamouth of criticisms and rebuttals. Take for instance the fraud allegations: the only bases are an exit poll which contradicts five other and a tech inform of an ex minister of CAP, with no peer review which could not convince even the US DoS. Instead of this long prose, the whole thing should be deleted JRSP 05:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Same problem as Flanker. You refuse to recognize that there is another side of the story, and that multiple reliable sources recognize the fraud, and that your five exit polls are just one side of a story. You see them as "facts". You all are determined that Wiki is for making a Chavez fan site, rather than reporting what reliable sources say. That is why the articles are so large: you refuse to engage in consensus building, and to allow brief summarization of the issues as seen from all sides and reported by reliable sources. You will be happy with nothing less than your version of the "facts". It is entirely un-Wiki. Sandy 05:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Frankly I no longer care about Summary Style and Size since they are not policy. But WP:BLP and WP:NPOV are, the article will never be GA or FA again so might as well concentrate on what matters, that critiscism does not overwhelm either article and that Praise/Critiscism is balanced. As for the Venezuelan economy all you have provided is opinion and predictions I give facts and results and all you do is post what a right winger economist thinks and predicts, hardly the same.Flanker 05:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't agree. Every article should strive for FA, and there's no reason any article shouldn't be the best possible. Oh, there is a reason, right? You want "praise". You want an encyclopedia to be a fan site for Chavez. Flanker, you need to accept that your facts are NOT facts: they are Chavez's views and opinions and interpretations. As soon as you agree to allow all sides of the story to be told, in encyclopedic brevity and tone, there is no reason this article can't be FA. It's not violating BLP, and the main article is violating NPOV because you insist upon *your* version of *facts*, unbalanced by a multitude of reliable sources, all of whom you claim are biased and mistaken. OK, a test. Did Chavez or did he not say to "enterrar la lista Tascon?" Did he banish the Tascon list or not? Sandy 05:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
A criticism article must not be a bashing page. JRSP 05:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
There shouldn't be a criticism page: content should be merged into the main article, but Flanker and company refuse to allow it. Please do point out any content which is bashing. According to you, would that be anything short of "Venezuelan has a booming economy and a vibrant democracy"? The content is entirely based on reliable sources. I've rarely encountered such a well-sourced series of articles anywhere on Wiki. OK, I've asked you both for weeks, if not months, to give a list of why the article is POV. If you aren't going to do that, we should stop filling up the talk page with dialogue that is going in circles, because you still have not been able to point out a single item that is POV. Sandy 05:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The most interesting thing about this discussion is that it reveals what I've suspected all along. You are convinced that your view of the world is "fact", no matter how many reliable sources tell you there is another side to the story; and you are convinced that this article is criticism, which you consider "unfactual", when the content of this article is every bit as much "fact" as your "facts". But more. This article is built from reliable sources. You report BCV data (a primary source, not allowed in Wiki, and I should delete it), massaged by Chavez, and consider it irrefutable "fact", even though reliable sources tell us clearly that Chavez's version of the data isn't giving you the straight story. (We don't need data to know that: the level of misery and poverty and crime and corruption in Caracas is before our eyes, so experience agrees with the reliable sources.)

As long as you refuse to understand that Wiki reports what reliable sources say, and that your version of the world isn't "fact", we won't be able to trim and summarize these articles, because you object to any reliable source that doesn't fit your world view. And that is the definition of POV and biased, tendentious editing. You truly don't recognize that there is another viewpoint, very different from what you consider "fact", and you don't acknowledge or accept any reliable source which doesn't agree with your POV. The preponderance of reliable sources can tell you that Venezuela's economy is in trouble, but you don't consider that "fact", you consider it criticism or bashing. Why is this article any less "fact" than what you call "fact"? Oh, because it doesn't agree with your POV, so it got labeled as "criticism", when it's not criticism at all. It is information from reliable sources, and that shares a majority view, so it never should have been banished to a Criticism article. The only reason it happened is because I made a good faith effort to shorten the main article, which was not repaid in kind. It's information reported from reliable sources which should be trimmed and merged into the main article.

It is this entrenched POV and inability to understand that Wiki is not a Chavez fan site, and that there are many sides to the story that should be told in Summary Style, that prevents editing by consensus and keeps us from finishing the main article.

OK, did Chavez say to enterrar la lista Tascón or not? Sandy 06:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The BCV is a primary source and I dare you to find a policy against that, second what the BCV reports is FACTS What critics interpret is OPINION, nowhere in the article does it say what you quoted, Third what you observe and think that refutes economic data is called anecdotal evidence (ie non-scientific). Fourth facts are scientific polls, statistical analisys etc. Opinion is not fact whether for or against. What you quoted again ("Venezuelan has a booming economy and a vibrant democracy") is opinion FOR and is not found anywhere.Fifth the article was splintered way before we started to heavily edit it. Sixth where do you want to go with the Tascon List?Flanker 03:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primary sources

"The BCV is a primary source and I dare you to find a policy against that". You are a bit confused in your interpretations. The relevant text about reliable sources is given below. Please read it, and stop using primary sources to include original research in articles.

A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term most often refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. It could be an official report, an original letter, a media account by a journalist who actually observed the event, or an autobiography. Statistics compiled by an authoritative agency are considered primary sources. In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material. Most primary-source material requires training to use correctly,' especially on historical topics. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections. We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

To put it in plain English, you need a secondary source to verify that Chavez's statistics are telling the truth. Your statistics are no more "fact" than what is reported by reliable sources. Your edits constantly use primary sources to insert your original research; that is, your opinion. Sandy 14:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Err no the Central Bank is a reliable publisher so your theory falls flat, what that specifically means is getting primary data from Ifoundthisstatisticathome.com is not allowed. There is a difference between what you believe and what is reality.Flanker 16:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tascón List

No wonder you don't want to answer the question about the Tascon list. Everyone knows it was posted on a website. Everyone knows that Chavez knew about it. Everyone knows he called for it to be "enterrado". All of this is reported in multiple reliable sources. Why would anyone deny the obvious? You call any source which you disagree with "biased" and "opinion", yet believe anything that Weisbrot prints (we can always count on his and Forero's pro-Chavez reporting). In an attempt to discredit Shifter's article in Foreign Affairs, Weisbrot writes a rebuttal to Shifter saying, "There are no such lists." First, it's funny that he can't find anything more substantial to disagee with in Shifter's very long and thorough article. If that's the only thing he can disagree with, I have to say that's a resounding endorsement to the accuracy of Shifter's article. Second, the lack of accuracy in Weisbrot's interpretation is blatant and apparent. Third, Weisbrot's bias in reporting on Venezuelan events noted. Now, do you still think Weisbrot is a good source for poverty statistics, when he apparently doesn't even know about the Tascon list?

Flanker, you've got to open your eyes here. We don't need reliable sources to tell us what is so abundantly clear in the streets of Caracas: the misery, poverty, crime and corruption in Venezuela are painfully apparent and worse than ever. Multiple reliable sources tell us that. You choose to rely on the few sources who don't see the Tascon list right under their eyes. Worse, you deny what we can all see with our own eyes, verified by multiple reliable sources. Sandy 14:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sandy regarding the Tascon List could you link to the Weisbrot piece? I know of the official line: Tascon released it so people could verify they were not being defrauded (sgnature where they did not sign) and its release was legal since information therin is public domain precisely for that reason. That is also what Chavez claimed in the following Alo, it was way after that reports of the use of the list to discriminate (which is the crime) then Chavez went public asking for followers to bury/don't use the list ever again since the signature drive was way over. Those are the facts and the official interpretation of those facts, what the oposition wants to prove but has yet to do (lets see how the JVR trial ends) is that the discrimination was either the INTENT or the official POLICY from anywhere above as punishment, that in itself is severely lacking, only accusation is abundant.
I do open my eyes Sandy, nowhere in the article states that there is no misery, or no porverty, or no crime(frankly this statistic should be added) and no corruption, As for the increase of the above it is again anecdotal evidence Just to show how anecdotal evidence is flawed I could easily refute that I have known of people that are doing better, whose version is correct? both could be actually but the only way to detect trends is through scientific evidence, of which polls are. This is not about wikipedia, this is about not closing your mind to numbers and evidence that goes against your argument because your perception is ofdiffrent, very important part of Critical thinking.Flanker 16:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Also the section "Allegations of electoral fraud and abuse" contains allegations against the CNE and Carter Center but not criticism to Hugo Chávez. Also contains the phrase "Chávez's government charged the founders of Súmate with treason and conspiracy for receiving foreign funds" which is clearly false as the Executive never charged Sumate JRSP 16:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism should be about the subject of the article

According to WP:BLP, "Criticism (...) should be about the subject of the article specifically." This article violates this several times, for instance, 'The Stephen Roth Institute reported in 2002 that anti-Israel, Chávez supporters demonstrated wearing t-shirts with the inscriptions "Jerusalem will be ours" and "Israel out, solidarity with the Palestinian cause." ' JRSP 16:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Going through these, I hope I got them all:

[edit] Criticism to followers, not to Chávez

From article:

In December 2004, according to the U.S. State Department, placards signed by the government political party MVR (Fifth Republic Movement) and the Venezuelan Communist Party "carried statements accusing Israel of having terrorist commandos in the country".[15]

JRSP 00:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted, although MVR is clearly Chavez's party. Sandy 22:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The Stephen Roth Institute reported in 2002 that anti-Israel, Chávez supporters demonstrated wearing t-shirts with the inscriptions "Jerusalem will be ours" and "Israel out, solidarity with the Palestinian cause."[16]
Deleted, although clear reference to Chavez supporters. Sandy 22:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
According to the Roth Institute, when Ultimas Noticias interviewed Libyan-Venezuelan politician and Fifth Republic 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."[16]
Deleted, although clear ties to Chavez. Sandy 22:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

JRSP 16:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism to Armed Force, Police

From article:

Members of the Venezuelan Armed Forces are alleged to be involved in supplying arms to Colombia's FARC,[17] and U.S. anti-drug officials allege that corruption within the Chávez administration is converting Venezuela into a trafficking route for Colombian drugs.[18] Critics also allege widespread corruption in the police force.[19]

JRSP

Reworded to incorporate clear references to Chavez in the source. 22:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism to AN Finance Comitee

To combat the high rate of inflation in Venezuela, the National Assembly (AN) Finance Committee submitted a proposal to the Venezuelan Central Bank (BCV) to remove three zeroes from the local currency (bolivares). Economist Pedro Palma explains that this move will have no effect on the economy or consumers, saying, "The trouble with zeros in the currency is that they are the result of inflation; not the other way around."[20] JRSP 13:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted, although no doubt that Chavez runs AN and CNE, will add those sources, but how many should I add, so Mateo doesn't claim "Kevlar?" 22:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism to Carter Center

Regarding the Venezuelan recall referendum of 2004, according to the Center for Security Policy, Carter's "continued international work certifying election results has provided essential political cover to anti-democratic forces in the region. Indeed, it might be said that over the past four years, Jimmy Carter has been the most visible and arguably most influential U.S. leader in Latin America." The article goes on to say that, "the (Hugo Chávez) regime delayed and obstructed the recall referendum process at every turn. Once the regime was forced to submit to such a referendum, moreover, it used a fraud-filled voting process to ensure victory. The government did everything—including granting citizenship to half a million illegal aliens in a crude vote-buying scheme and “migrating” existing voters away from their local election office—to fix the results in its favor. The outcome was then affirmed and legitimated by ex-President Jimmy Carter’s near-unconditional support." "Jimmy Carter ignored pleas from the opposition and publicly endorsed the results, despite the fact that the government reneged on its agreement to carry out an audit of the results."[21] The Carter Center claims to have carried out the audit [22]

JRSP 13:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted part of this, rest clearly applies. Sandy 22:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Foreign Policy Magazine reports that the opposition was "shocked not so much by the results as by the ease with which international observers condoned the Electoral Council's flimsy audit of the results."[23] Sumate says the sample for the audit was selected by the National Electoral Council, and was not of sufficient size to be statistically reliable.[24]

JRSP 15:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You can't destroy the context of the article: not every sentence has to directly relate to Chavez, in order to tell the full story. Deleted "shocked by" sentence. Sandy 22:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism?

From article:

As of August, 2006, Venezuela was actively seeking the candidacy of non-permanent UN Security Council set. In the final contest between Guatemala and Venezuela, Guatemala's candidacy is backed by the United States while Venezuela was courting Africa, the Arab league, and Russia.[25][26][27][28]

JRSP

Deleted for now, it will be back as numerous reliable sources make the clear connection. Sandy 22:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
In August, 2006, following reported differences with Chávez during his recent international tour, Presidential Secretary Delcy Rodríguez was replaced by Adán Chávez, the brother of Hugo Chávez. Adán Chávez had previously been the ambassador to Cuba.[29]

JRSP 01:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Spurious delete, clear criticism of how he manages his cabinet. Sandy 22:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Who says this is a mismanagement?JRSP 23:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal

SuperFlanker, I've just taken a look at the latest removal and I saw this sourced statement which had been removed. "U.S. anti-drug officials who have alleged that corruption within the government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez may be converting Colombia's neighbor into a major drug route." Surely this is criticism of Hugo Chavez and should remain in the article. Is this an oversight?--Zleitzen 03:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:BLP, "Criticism (...) should be about the subject of the article specifically". I understand this is a criticism to the government in general, not to HC JRSP 03:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. I understand what you mean but there is a grey area here. Are you suggesting that no criticism of the policies of the present government be allowed? --Zleitzen 03:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Under "criticism to the gov of HC", or "the gov of Venezuela", but in "Criticism of HC" it would be guilt by association. "HC is not doing enough to fight corruption" (well sourced, of course) would be ok too JRSP 04:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The grey are we are also trying to fight is the implicit bias that Chavez is totalitarian Meaning that he controls all, claiming that critiscism of "corrupt" elements within his government is not the same as stating that "corrupt Chavez may be converting Colombia's neighbor into a major drug route." BTW this is also wrong Venezuela has always been a major drug route or Puente as it is called here: check out the CIA factbook from 98 [28] Flanker 17:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

A good litmus test I always mention on what should be allowed, Imagine you are editing a non-existing article of Criticism of GWB would Cheney's Halliburton corruption accusation bear mentioning? Removing regional bias (foreign lands are just their leader) is a key part of this drive.Flanker 17:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I see it differently Flanker. Let's take comparisons to leaders of which I am more accustomed - Fulgencio Batista - now he led an extreme authoritarian government and precided over a period of vast corruption in Cuba. In his article these allegations have to be mentioned, to ignore it would devalue the article. Another example would be Tony Blair see [29] - though that article is far from perfect, it deals again with criticisms of the policies and government of Blair as well as the man. Of course, there can be overkill and one can go too far the other way - I am forever trying to prevent the Fidel Castro article from being expanded into another Politics of Cuba/History of Cuba/Human rights in Cuba - where the article is solely about the government not the individual, but there is a grey area. My decision would be to keep it, it is referring to corruption "within the government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez", therefore it passes my litmus test of referring to Chavez. By the way, if criticisms of the government are not applicable, then any material referring to the Chavez government - not Chavez - should be treated in the same fashion. But that is not workable, is it?--Zleitzen 19:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Well first there is no shortage of criticism towards Chavez, so the ambiguation between government of X and X would matter little, secondly Batista is dead so BLP and its critiscism is more loose, third even though for the first time I find a verbose criticism section of a right wing politician [30] as you can see there is no mention of the corruption scandal gripping Labour sortof proving my point. This is my litmus test, give it the same treatment given to anglo-saxon politicians on the right, Labour corruption is not added in Blair's article. Cheney, Duke Cunningham or Tom Delay is not on Bushs's. Flanker 22:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
But perhaps Batista was authoritarian and corrupt himself (and not alive anyway). Regarding Tony Blair, for instance it would not be correct to criticize him for the shooting of De Meneses in the London Tube. Now, criticizing the results of their politics, this is different, but you can't blame a head of state/government for everything bad that happens in their countries JRSP 22:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually one would argue that Blair's policies were responsible for the shooting of De Meneses. Terrorism acts and so on, appointments of police chiefs etc. I certainly hold Blair partly responsible and so do many journalists and officials. The point is that the grey area is very grey indeed. You say "you can't blame a head of state/government for everything bad that happens in their countries", then you are drawing an imaginary line. Which will always be open to question.
  • Forget the BLP onus, all articles should be held to the highest principles of sourcing and attribution. Whether someone is alive or dead. The point here is you can't have an article about a leading political figure without discussing the alleged effects of the policies. The "converting the country into a major drug route" is exactly that.
  • Don't worry too much about criticism. As long as it is sourced and attributed then it needn't be a problem. Every week some bright spark comes along to wikipedia with a cited criticism of Fidel Castro and/or Cuba. 95% of these additions are, in a word, bollocks. But if they come from a notable source (such as Forbes claims that Castro is the 5th richest man in the world, has a castle in Austria and so on) then they go in - attributed of course. That's not a problem. So if U.S. anti-drug officials have some notion that the Chavez government is converting the country into a major drug route, then so be it.
  • I understand the right-left discrepancy. I stumbled across a raging war on the Condoleeza Rice article, whilst amending a small Cuba section on my round of chores. Users were refusing to allow other users to insert any criticism at all into that article. I stayed around long enough to ensure that the order was rebalanced somewhat, but it blew a hole in the myth that wikipedia is a "left leaning" encyclopedia. I used this lengthy article as an example of how crazy the situation on the Rice article was. I also appreciate the point Flanker makes concerning "regional bias", that foreign nationals immediately associate a country with the leader, forgetting the vast structure of government beneath.
  • We'll have to agree to disagree on where the line is to be drawn in this grey area. But understand that it is a grey area. And unless your line is clearly defined and secure then I fear you'll be defending it for a long time coming.--Zleitzen 00:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, a journalist in a reliable source criticizing TB's politics on anti-terror war and linking this to the De Meneses shooting can be considered a valid criticism. However "corruption within the government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez " is not the same IMO. It would be necessary a source critizicing for instance that HC has not done enough in combating corruption/drug trafficking (I can bet this source almost surely exists). My opinion is that the criticsism to HC must be in the source but we cannot allow a general criticism to people in the government be put under the title "Criticism of HC" as this would be guilt by association, in my opinion JRSP 00:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If there is a grey area all I ask is that the same standard be applied to other right wing anglo-saxon figures, WP:Bias attmepts to counter systematic bias.
  • Well it is a big policy to ask to ignore considering its severe language and exceptions it gives, but lets assume we live in an ideal world of creating a the best encyclopedia, certainly something much better than a vague accusation (that could even be interpreted as not being an accusation) would not make it even worse since it lacked evidence, that said that is not wikipedia and understand that, and just as it has rules on the above being allowed in normal circumstances, it has equally harsh restrictions for it not making it under living biographies.Flanker 01:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • But they don't really say that this is what they say: U.S. anti-drug officials who have alleged that corruption within the government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez may be converting Colombia's neighbor into a major drug route. They do not even criticize Chavez, they don't say "Chavez turned a blind eye" or "It is a new phenomenom" or "as a result of close allience with the FARC" That is my beef it is bad enough that wikipedia has such low standards but it is worse if we misinterpret what the source says.Flanker 01:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The article is now 84 KB Long

Just a reminder of the irony that it may even surpass the main article if the other is trimmed.Flanker 17:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It's also more than 4.5 times the size of the Criticism of George W. Bush article, despite Bush being at least as controversial as Chavez and far more notable. Another sign, I suppose, of Wikipedia's conservative bias. 71.203.209.0 21:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
91 KB--Andres rojas22 20:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Domestic Section

The domestic section contains no criticism. Is there a reason for this? --Zleitzen 15:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

cut from the article, pasted here for discussion
Chávez's domestic policy relies heavily on the "Bolivarian Missions," a series of political campaigns aimed at radically altering the economic and cultural landscape of Venezuela. The Missions are a series of social justice, social welfare, anti-poverty, educational, electoral and military recruiting programs.
According to The Boston Globe, the president of the National Assembly's finance commission, Rodrigo Cabezas, says that PDVSA, the state-owned oil company, will generate nearly US$19 billion which will go to social spending in 2006. Another US$4.5 billion will be set aside for antipoverty projects, and PDVSA is depositing about $100 million a week into a discretionary presidential spending fund. Seventy percent of Chávez’s so-called Fund for National Development is earmarked for infrastructure projects, and 25 percent for social spending, according to Cabezas. Oil revenues and royalties have yielded US$50 billion available for public spending in 2006. The government says this oil windfall is "transforming the lives of the poor".[30]
JRSP 15:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article (currently) has to stand alone, so context must be provided. If the article is *all* criticism, with no context, it doesn't make sense, and is unbalanced. JRSP removes anything that is not criticism, while Flanker says the article is unbalanced if it's all criticism. No way to please them both. I'm adding the text back, because it provides needed context for the sections that follow. Sandy 01:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, anything that isn't criticism or responses to criticism (responses also shouldn't dominate the the criticism) is non essential. The moment I read that paragraph I felt that the page had become a pro-Chavez whitewash, only to check the history and discover that it was Sandy that had written it! --Zleitzen 02:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
-)

Another article from today: Pdvsa social contribution totals USD 5.6 billion

The point of the numbers is that Chavez has had massive funding with which to work because of the unprecedented oil prices (reference the Boston Globe Windfall article). His Domestic policy is based on using the PDVSA revenues to support his programs, so we need the context of the amount of spending. Even with a massive oil windfall, he hasn't addressed problems, hasn't kept his promises, and hasn't built a better economy. His entire program of social spending is being propped up by high oil prices, so we need that context. The problem is, as indicated by many sources, what will happen to people in Venezuela (and Cuba) if oil prices fall, and they are predicted to fall dramatically by Thanksgiving. Also, Flanker often inserts primary sources about the economy, which don't mention, well duh, with oil prices where they are, how could the GDP *not* be growing? It depends on the current oil windfall. Can we find a way to make the context more clear, rather than delete?

Also, I still don't understand how to solve the POV fork, imbalance thing. If we delete anything but criticism, Flanker tags the article as unbalanced or POV (even though a rationale for that tag has still not been provided). Sandy 13:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of electoral fraud and abuse section

  • Critics claim that the Chávez government is leading Venezuela in an authoritarian direction, abandoning democratic tradition, extending state control over the economy, eliminating dissent, and carrying out "social programs that will set Venezuela back".[3][4]
Who are the critics? They really need to be detailed and attributed. Who said what? --Zleitzen 15:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Have added some basic info - critics in the United States, including the U.S. state department. We have to give some background to where the criticism is coming from.--Zleitzen 18:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Saw your changes (to the United States) which isn't quite accurate, since criticism also come from within Venezuela. Will look for other places, but saying it was only the U.S. isn't quite right. If I detail every critical source (there are legions), other editors cry overkill. Do you want them all ? Sandy 01:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
That's best I believe. Of course we know that criticism has come from a number of places and not purely from the U.S. but I think we have to attribute criticism as much as possible. The "critics say" is a warning sign to roving editors - who usually end up tearing an article to pieces trying to remove it. I did the edit before I read your arguments on this point higher up the page - I understand the problems of keeping the article smooth and compact.
Perhaps if it reads "Critics in Venezuela (one citation for good measure), somehere else(?) (one citation) and the United States (the two citations which can be reused below) claim that..." Then the sentence is better protected. --Zleitzen 02:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, that's a helpful suggestion. I'll see what I can scare up, but I'm not sure when I can get to it. Very busy two weeks coming up. Sandy 03:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I moved that entire paragraph. I don't know how it ended up in the wrong section: it is not about electoral fraud, rather was the general overview. Sandy 13:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Starting to add sources. Human rights orgs should be mentioned: HRW mentions packing of judiciary, supreme court, etc. HRW Sandy 13:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "Amnesty International said today it was also concerned that President Chávez did not appear to be familiar with the universal principal that all individuals and groups all over the world are free to collaborate and to exchange information and expertise for the purpose of protecting and defending universally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms." Amnesty International. Sandy 13:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • A sample fromVeneconomy, highly-respected Economic advisers in Venezuela. There is much more on their website. Sandy 13:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Petkoff, Venezuelan politican and leftist, also is a Chavez critic, New York Times. Sandy 13:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Peru Vargas Llosa and Lourdes Flores.
  • Brasil Cardoso.
  • InterAmerican Press Association.
  • Venezuela. Note the content of this article, compared to current articles from El Universal, due to new law. New articles are short, generally have no author, and only repeat what outside press or others say. They can no longer write these kinds of detailed reports, signed by the reporter. Sandy 13:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Súmate carries numerous reports: State of Democracy. Sandy 13:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It should be mentioned that he was also criticized by the Venezuelan military. Militares Democraticos. Sandy 13:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • And, from Europe: The Economist - Venezuela: The sickly stench of corruption, Mar 30th 2006 "Mr Chávez has grasped all the powers of state into his own hands, and eliminated all independent oversight of his government."
That should be enough: if you suggest the new text, I can incorporate it, along with references. But that entire paragraph somehow had ended up in the wrong section: it was supposed to be the Domestic overview, so I moved it. This is not the part about electoral fraud, which has yet to be extensively explored (there is still much to be said about how he got power, kept power, and will keep power for life). Sandy 15:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Why did Súmate initiate the recall? Perhaps a sentence or two taken from the Súmate page could expand on the motives?--Zleitzen 18:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
That would work. Sandy 01:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Will do.--Zleitzen 02:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Have changed the text from the "results were controversial" to "The referendum results were questioned by some sources in the United States". We need to attribute where the controversy is coming from, I've gone by the citations provided.--Zleitzen 19:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Same problem about not only US - criticism also came from within Venezuela, and most likely other places. Again, if I pile on cites, *my* critics claim argument by verbosity. Some guidance would be helpful. Sandy 01:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I feel that it's not a major problem inserting notable sourced criticism as long as it is attributed and not too repetitve, as you say we can't carry every criticism for practicalities sake. Otherwise the same response as above.--Zleitzen 02:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, as soon as I can get to it. Sandy 03:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sumate grant number

  • Added citation needed for Súmate being a US funded group. At present it is too vague. I'm pretty sure they are funded by Venezuelan business and receive some additional funding from the US. At present it reads as though they are a US puppet organisation.--Zleitzen 19:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
They are by no means a "US funded group" (a $30,000 grant hardly amounts to enough funding to do anything), but that particular source given for that sentence, which doesn't appear to have been carried by any major newspapers (according to what I could find at the library), does specifically use that wording. How do we resolve that? Sandy 01:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Do we have any good sources for the funding. I checked the internet and the page but couldn't find anything substantial.--Zleitzen 03:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Very interesting question. I have a ton of sources, but there is one thing I have never fleshed out, and we might as well do it. Most sources (and the more solid sources) say the amount of the grant was $30,000 (ish), but a couple of sources say $50,000 (ish). I've never known where the 50 number comes from, or understood the discrepancy. I'll go get some of the sources and put them here. I also have a recent source somewhere indicating (IIRC, if I recall correctly) that is either 6 or .6 % of Sumate's budget that year. I've got too much paper everywhere :-) Sandy 03:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • CBS $31,000
  • HRW $31,150
  • US Embassy $31,000
  • International coalition $31,150
  • NED $53,400 I've never seen this source before, just found it on a search. It describes exactly what funds were for.
  • NED $31,150 NED with a reprint of the lower number <sheesh>
  • Library of congress $53,400 Interesting, I'm finding more "official" support for the 53 number, although the 31 is the more commonly reported number.
  • $31,000 Venezuelan Judge Orders Trial For Chavez Foe Helped by U.S. Juan Forero. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jul 8, 2005. pg. A.2
  • $53,000 Anti-Chavez leader under fire ; Maria Corina Machado is due in court Wednesday on treason charges.; [ALL Edition] Mike Ceaser Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor. Christian Science Monitor. Boston, Mass.: Jul 5, 2005. pg. 06
  • $31,000 Americas: A Young Defender of Democracy Faces Chavez's Wrath. Mary Anastasia O'Grady. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Jun 10, 2005. pg. A.9

Sandy 03:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Government claims Sumate managed over $1 million, meaning $30,000 or $50,000 is less than 5% of total:
  • Sumate says foreign contributions are 6% of funds, but the numbers don't work in this report, I think there's a translation error. It can't be a billion. Need to find original report in Spanish. If you do the numbers, it would be $1.8 million, not billion.

In either case, 6% is the max. Sandy 04:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there were several grants JRSP 04:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe so, but I've never found any source discussing this discrepancy: don't know how to handle it in the text. Sandy 04:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure. They sure received some grant/s fron NED and USAID, Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Venezuelan opposition parties, volunteers, etc. "Partly founded by the USA", maybe? JRSP 04:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem is, if it's not even 10%, maybe only 5%, it shouldn't even rise to that level. The only reason it even gets mentioned in the news is because Chavez charged them. They received a small grant, which was nothing in relation to their overall expenditures. The description, "which received a grant of <insert> from the US-backed NED" is adequate for me. Sandy 12:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps in the earlier part of the paragraph which states "Súmate, a Venezuelan, not-for-profit civil association, was founded in 2002." we add the sentence "The group is funded in large part by private Venezuelan groups, but also reportedly received up to 6% of their funds via a grant from the US-backed NED."--Zleitzen 17:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Very good! (It's so helpful to have a new set of eyes :-) I don't know if we can say "private Venezuelan groups", though, since I'm not privy to the rest of their funding sources. Are they "groups" or individuals? Anyway, if you make the edit, I guess you'll also delete the unsourced US-funded line? Sandy 17:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest addition

An anon editor has added this rather thin claim to article.

Chavez is also known to have supplied USD$1 million to al-qaeda after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, in order to improve al-qaeda's ability to survive and re-locate away from capture [www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/848112/posts] [31]

I've removed it here for discussion and so we can address how to deal with the claim. For starters, it doesn't give any substance behind who is making it, why, or what it involves. Users will need to check the sources in detail.--Zleitzen 01:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I see that a couple of admins and other editors have treated this new editor really unfairly. That incident is well known, Zleitzen, it was reported by Chavez's pilot. I'll track down some other sources next week when I have full internet access and more time, but you might try the Miami Herald. It's not a thin claim, although it is from the time period when the media simply wasn't paying attention to Chavez. Sandy 15:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This is the most ridiculous hoax I ever heard of. --MauroVan 00:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Free Republic is not by any rational standard a reliable source, and WorldNetDaily isn't much better. If you've got anything about this from a real news source, it would be worthy of inclusion. 71.203.209.0 22:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cubanization of Venezuela

I think the article is missing a lot of the cuban-venezuelan deal, heavily criticized in Venezuela by the media. Selling cheap oil to Cuba and other caribbean countries and poor neighbourhoods in the USA. Recently CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer mentioned Cuban officials were running the Venezuelan intelligence, Chavez personal security (whom were denied access to the USA for having a cuban background. Anyone knows more about these?

--'''El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Qvixote De La Mancha''' 05:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WTF?????

Why is there such a big article about negative reviews of Chavez?this is clearly not holding NPOV,this article should be reduced and added to the article about Hugo Chavez and his presidency,or if not at least create an article of the same time of his supporters views.--Andres rojas22 01:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The supporters of Chavez at the main article had this split off to reduce the criticism there. It's highly POV. 129.22.182.205 12:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it is of interest that there is no article titled Praise of Hugo Chávez or Approval of Hugo Chávez. But the same can be said of other prominent public figures; see e.g. Criticism of George W. Bush. I guess these "Criticism of..." articles are a consequence of Wikipedia's openness; some people will continually try to exploit it to push a point of view. They may even be useful references to some readers. -- Rob C (Alarob) 21:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chomsky

The current section on antisemitism allegations ends by pointing out Chavez's admiration for Noam Chomsky, but merely describes the latter as "of Jewish descent." I propose:

--We describe Chomsky as "Jewish," because that's what he is according to himself, Jewish law, and everyone else I've ever heard of. Lots of people have Jewish descent somewhere down the line.

--We describe him as being known for his criticism of Israel. This is a very well-known part of his political activism, and quite relevant to the issue at hand.

Seems clear to me that the mention is grossly underinformative, to those who don't instantly know who Chomsky is, without a mention of both his Jewishness and his criticism of Israel; and yet the article is deficient in both respects. I think both supporters and critics of Chavez should agree on this.205.212.74.252 19:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed this section because it has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. Furthermore, the book he was promoting had to do with US foreign policy not Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coeus (talk • contribs) 22:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POVeeeewwww!!!

this article reads like a redneck biblethumpin cia agent's manifesto. I know chavez is no saint and he's probably as power hungry as pervez musharef but the editors should put some dignity in their own criticism. it seems like any general dislike expressed by any rightwinger in US, israel or venezuela has been shoved into this article. I recommend you cut back on the stupid opinion stuff and focus on his specific actions and policies and how he's abused human rights, and attempted to consolidate power. this way you'll look less like texan republicans who think the world stops at the U.S border.Esmehwp 15:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no "Bush criticisms" page? Still, there is a whole page devoted to criticisms of Hugo Chavez, who the American government happen to loathe. Just must have worked out that way, I guess.

What are you talking about? Criticism of George W. Bush exists, and has existed for some time. Now I would prefer to see that article rolled into George W. Bush and this article rolled into Hugo Chávez, but those are wishes not reality.
Heck, the GWB criticism article is even linked to in the GWB template...
CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Some of the contributions in this article are in need of rewriting. I'll try and do so over the next few days. Delad 07:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove this paragraph?

"In his speech to the UN in 2006, Chávez held up the book Hegemony or Survival by Noam Chomsky, a noted Jewish intellectual who is strongly critical of Israeli policies.[136] Chávez cites him as one of his political influences."

It is true that Chavez held up Hegemony and Survival at the UN and it is also true that Chomsky is strongly critical of Israeli policies. None of this supports an argument that Chavez is anti-Semitic however, unless you make the unwarranted assumption that being critical of Israel makes you anti-Semitic. I suggest this paragraph be moved to a different section or removed altogether.

[edit] Propaganda Affliction

I STRONGLY move that this whole article be deleted. If we are to include "criticism" then we might as well include "praises". I subscribe to the belief that Wikipedia should not be used by anyone with clear political agenda. This article is not only filled with POVs, but also very skewed; ultimate playing into that propaganda prominent in Western media about Venezuela and Chavez. And one thing more, it is totally moronic to consider any criticism against Israel and its policies as necessarily antisemitic. It's totally stupid. Johnyang2 08:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with the previous post.

Viva Venezuela y que Viva Chavez!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.31.174.27 (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Why wikipedia does not have a section called : criticisms of George W Bush? would be tons of pages of criticism. The whole world knows the truth, the most hated president in the world and the worst ever is only one G W Bush . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.31.174.27 (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is an article called Criticism of George W. Bush. An article, mind you, that was placed there at 8:43 AM on January 2, 2006.47of74 01:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Judaism'

Why is this part of wikiproject Judaism, despite the widely discredited accusations of anti-semitism mentioned above Chavez has nothing to do with Judaism, I know he is critical of Israel, but Israel does not = Judaism, something which many editors on this encyclopedia dont seem to grasp. The fact that this article has been made part of wikiproject Judaism reeks of POV, as the only reason it would be of intrest to that project was if Chavez was a confirmed anti-semite, something which he is not, as anyone who reads the article can see this is widely disputed. Whoever put the wikiproect Judaism tab on this either was doing a batman-type sign to get some right wing nationalists to come over here, or has the POV that Chavez is anti-semitic, and this tab shouldnt be on here based on someone's POV. Again I say that criticism of pro-Israeli bias, or comparison of events with the holocaust does not neccessarily show he is anti-semitic, merely that he has a very clear point of view, something that no one would dispute.

And ayway, if he was antisemitic (which I completly dispute and a reafirm is in no way shape or form confirmed) this is in no way a defining point of his policy, and therefore has little relevance with Judaism in general.

PS I am dyslexic so my spelling may be off, and Im no good at proof reading, if you have OCD or anything feel free to edit.172.143.124.86 20:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree totally. I'll remove the tag as it seems pretty obvious but feel free to react of you disagree. --Bombastus 23:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Plagiarism

I noticed a large portion of the Personal section appears to be copied from "Hugo Chávez and Constitutional Reform" by Salim Lamrani (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13801). The section was added at 19:04, 25 October 2007 by 64.31.174.27. The same address has been used many times to vandalize the page and those edits were quickly reverted.

[edit] Please help with article

Can anyone please help with 2007 Venezuelan demonstrations? I tried to make this article an accurate reflection of the unrest which occurred around the referendum. this included the fact that several people were injured. However, two editors came in, and removed all the factual details from the article, turning it into a diluted vague overview. it now says that demonstrations were "largely peaceful," and ignores the facts from the cited articles. i can't do anything about this on my own. If anyone could please please help, i'd be really grateful. thanks very much. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Criticism, How dare you?????

Hugo Chavez is a wonderfull socialist liberator, peacemaker, and friend to the world. He is not the trouble making, power hungry Thug, that you Imperialist (Americans) want him to be. Freedom has increased during his watch. The Venezuelan Government has never been as coruption free as it is now. There is no poverty or crime. Venezuelan relationships with other government have never been better. How dare you pathetic capitalists use Wikipedia to promote you twisted world view. This kind of talk would never be allowed in Venezuela.--64.94.199.9 (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it wouldn't be allowed in Venezuela, which is why dissidents leave for their lives. --Green Hill (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum to express the weak attempts at sarcasm Flanker (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
O RLY? --Green Hill (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Maisanta

The information supplied under the recent 'Maisanta' edit is attributed to a seminar held at Stanford Uni. Why should this material be allowed? It isn't peer reviewed nor is it published (i.e. it seems to fail RS guidlines and, therefore, W:Verifiability). Delad (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP says that negative statements about living persons must strictly comply with wikipedia content policies. Academic blogs cannot be used to appeal to authority. Almost all universities provide web space for their scholars to publish working papers, but the institution does not check this material or assume responsibility about their contents. JRSP (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Bombastus has not used the talk page to dicuss these changes despite objections to the material. My objections do not start with the objectivity of the material but whether it meets wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources. I feel they don't. Delad (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Where do you see a blog or a working paper, that is academic work, within a seminary organized at Stanford. As long as the document is properly attributed to its authors and qualified for what it is, it is OK. The question is not to tell that it is a paper from a peer-review journal but to tell precisely what it is.
Refusing an academic reference because it is not peer-reviewed but accepting any newspaper seems a bit strange.. If the guideline orders this, it is time to think of changinf the guideline.--Bombastus (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
You may discuss this at WT:V or WT:RS. The fact is that WP:BLP ask us to use the tightest standards when adding negative material about living persons, and in the case of an academic work that means publication on a peer-reviewed reputable journal. Attributing and qualifying don't work here because the relevance of authors has not been established, working at Stanford is not enough. The authors are making an exceptional claim and that needs extraordinary sources. JRSP (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, it doesn't help NPOV that one of the authors of the paper has previously called Chávez an "anti-American autocrat"[32]. He might be an academic but first he acts as an opposition politician. JRSP (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)