Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Untitled

This archive page covers approximately the dates between June 19 and June 28, 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary.
See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

GDP figures are not accurate

The infamous 1% drop in GDP per capita is completely inaccurate, the only point of reference is the CIA factbook that is self contradictory and as a result they specifically states "Note: the numbers for GDP and other economic data should not be chained together from successive volumes of the Factbook because of changes in the US dollar measuring rod, revisions of data by statistical agencies, use of new or different sources of information, and changes in national statistical methods and practices" [1] Below you show the economist link from 98 till 2004 but fail to note that the economy has grown by a staggering 30-35% or 15% (depending if it was late 04 or early 04) since. Also the oil boom explanation has to be counterbalanced with the oil strike, coups, lockouts that almost destroyed the economy.Flanker 19:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Here it shows that the economy per capita grew by 4.3% in late 04 and that is without including 05 (overall 9.3% growth) and 06 (already halfway and around 9.4%)Flanker 19:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Another editor put a citation tag on the 1% drop mentioned in the criticism section, so I added a reference for that specific text, citing The Economist (which shows a 1.8% drop, larger than previously cited 1% from the CIA, by the way - we can go back to the lower drop shown by the CIA if you prefer, but I think The Economist should know more about economy than the CIA :-).

Economic data is mentioned in the article in two places: one has been updated to reflect The Economist data (because another editor tagged it): the other is unchanged from the CIA data, pending consensus.

In the Criticism section: The opposition also reports that both poverty and unemployment figures under Chávez have not seen significant improvements and that official corruption under his government continues to be --Ozzyprv 04:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)rampant,[93] and point to the 1-2% drop in Venezuela's per-capita GDP early in Chávez's term, before the 2004 surge in oil prices.[94] This cites data from The Economist, not the CIA. However, both the CIA and The Economist report numbers of a similar order of magnitude (1.8 % vs. 1% - pretty similar. They don't cover the exact same span of years, but they are both pre-oil price surge, and since his term started).

In the Economic policy section, not yet updated except to reflect your (Flanker's) numbers: Per-capita GDP in 2004 dropped around 1% from 1999 levels, [56][63] but with rising oil prices, recent economic activity under Chávez has been robust.[64][65] As of May 2006, the government reports a 6.4% drop in official unemployment, [66][67] and a 6% drop in poverty by the government's definition of "poverty".[68][69] I have not yet updated the references from the CIA, since I've been waiting to develop consensus on changing current content. I'll be happy to update the references to the data from The Economist, which shows essentially the same thing as the CIA (GDP dropped during Chavez's early term, before the oil price surge, around 1 - 2%).

The recent economic activity reflects data and sources provided by yourself (Flanker - if I recall?). Some of your sources discuss forecasts, rather than actuals. (The Economist shows real GDP growth averaging 2.3% between 2001 and 2005. [2]) GDP, as expected, grew with the surge in oil prices. However, current GDP data still needs to be discussed in the context of other relevant sources and data. (Both of your sources indicate growth less then expected, and slow-down in growth: these factors have yet to be explored, and are in line with the data I'm finding. Venezuela's GDP growth may be "robust", but we have yet to discuss whether it's economy is robust.)

I'm trying to continue addressing old issues raised as fast as I can, and I updated one reference when another editor tagged it as citation needed. But, I don't have time to look at everything at once, and WGee and 172 haven't yet re-appeared. I'd like to see us clear out the old items (1 - 19 above) before moving forward. Can you please go back through those and let me know where we have consensus, since I don't want to get too far ahead of other editors? My question about where we stand on all of those issues is right above this section. (If you'd rather wait for WGee of 172 to re-appear, I can hold off on archiving, but the talk page is getting lengthy.)

Since the historical CIA data is validated by The Economist data, which is the same order of magnitude, and since the current "robust" growth data is from your sources, I'm not clear on what problem exists with the current text, except that we have not yet tackled the fact that growth has not been what it should be, considering the oil price surge, and we haven't yet discussed the overall economy. Sandy 20:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you read my post? the CIA knows enough about economics to post this ""Note: the numbers for GDP and other economic data should not be chained together from successive volumes of the Factbook because of changes in the US dollar measuring rod, revisions of data by statistical agencies, use of new or different sources of information, and changes in national statistical methods and practices"" [3]

"(1.8 % vs. 1% - pretty similar. They don't cover the exact same span of years, but they are both pre-oil price surge, and since his term started)." Yes but it is incomplete it is like selecting an arbitrary cutoff point for emphasis without mentioning that the oposition coup, strikes etc almost destroyed the economy, either all of it is included or both events are mentioned sabotage and windfall.

"I'll be happy to update the references to the data from The Economist, which shows essentially the same thing as the CIA (GDP dropped during Chavez's early term, before the oil price surge, around 1 - 2%)." We are in 2006 not 2004 this is intentionally misleading towards the reader at least without a balanced timeline.

(Both of your sources indicate growth less then expected, and slow-down in growth: these factors have yet to be explored, and are in line with the data I'm finding. Venezuela's GDP growth may be "robust", but we have yet to discuss whether it's economy is robust.) Well the prediction was wrong in both cases a number lower than 9% was predidcted and both year it was around 9% (2005 and half 2006) If we want we can go into more detail but trust me the government still looks much better in detail.

"except that we have not yet tackled the fact that growth has not been what it should be, considering the oil price surge, and we haven't yet discussed the overall economy." yes it should be higher if not for the sabotage, I will post detailed GDP numbers later, all the references you have are outdated 2004 numbers not updated ones, more or less going backwards.Flanker 20:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not an arbitrary cut off date: it's what the economy was doing before the surge in oil prices. Venezuela's economy is dependent (overly-dependent) on oil, so when oil surges, the economy is expected to surge. It is not misleading the reader, because it is precisely the critics' point: without the dramatic surge in oil prices, Venezuela's economy was faltering, and considering the dramatic surge in oil prices, it's not growing as fast as it should be. The critics' point (and it is correct to state that it is the critics' point, as well as the point of primary reference sources) is that, before the oil price surge, the economy was slumping. What the economy has done *since* the oil price surge is less than what was expected, considering the dramatic rise in oil prices. In summary, what would you like to change in the statement about what the Chavez critics claim? Sandy 21:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The economy was sabotaged by the oposition, if the cutoff is in place then TWO cutoffs must be made pre-coup and then post-strike pick up in oil prices, if what Venezuela is doing less than it should then why is Mexico growing at a paltry 4%? They produce more oil than Venezuela AND they are a neoliberal economy government. Flanker 22:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I decided to create a similar table an graph from this data [4] detailing the meteoric growth of the venezuelan non-oil economy post strike. Flanker 20:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Detailed GDP growth per quarter 2004 to Q1 2006

×	2004Q1	2004Q2	2004Q3	2004Q4	2005Q1	2005Q2	2005Q3	2005Q4	2006Q1
Oil sector	69.8%	2.5%	-0.7%	-1.6%	-1.4%	1%	4.4%	2.7%	-0.2%
Mining sector	49.6%	6.0%	4.6%	1.6%	-2.2%	3.1%	-4.5%	0.8%	3.8%
Manufacturing sector	50.9%	25.5%	18.6%	14.7%	6.4%	12.2%	8.9%	8.5%	9.4%
Utilities sector	11.2%	4.1%	7.3%	5.1%	6.0%	11.5%	8.9%	7.6%	7.3%
Construction sector	41.4%	29.4%	41.4%	20.6%	11.8%	20.8%	17.2%	28.3%	21.2%
Comerce and repair services sector	34.4%	24.7%	21.7%	23.3%	19.1%	22.6%	16.7%	19.9%	21%
Transport and storage sector	35.4%	24.4%	24.7%	23.5%	13.1%	16.2%	12.1%	10.6%	11.4%
Telecomunications sector	6.3%	9.0%	14.2%	11.5%	16.6%	17.7%	16.9%	27.9%	28.1%
Finantial and insurance sector	32.1%	30.6%	25.9%	19.8%	25.8%	24.3%	31.1%	40.4%	41.4%

Flanker 22:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Those numbers don't mean anything. The rest of the economy depends on oil: it is expected to do well when oil prices surge. And, the rest of the economy is a miniscule part of the Venezuelan economy, since it is overly dependent on oil revenues. Sandy 22:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No it is not meaningless since it shows growth on non-oil sectors, it would be like me dismissing Chile's growth because it is dependent on world markets and the outside FDI (look at the asian crisis and global recession of 82-83).Flanker 23:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:But, I don't have time to look at everything at once, and WGee and 172 haven't yet re-appeared. Nonsense. I haven't left. I just don't have the time to spend most of the day every day on this talk page. 172 | Talk 00:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. -- WGee 01:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Nonsense. I haven't left. Not nonsense, no need to get huffy - I didn't say you'd left. I was allowing time for you to catch up, since you both indicated you'd be busy for a while. Sandy 02:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, and just so you know, I have not left either. I read the changes on the pages (article and talk) every day. --Ozzyprv 04:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It has already been noted in the text that Venezuela's economy is highly dependent on the oil sector, so the inclusion of the economic data that Flanker provided won't mislead anyone. And according to the CIA, the oil sector accounts for one-third of Venezuela's GDP. This may be a large proportion, but we cannot exclude the growth in the non-oil sectors of the economy, which account for two-thirds of the GDP. [5] -- WGee 19:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, the CIA states that "Output recovered strongly in 2004-2005, aided by high oil prices and strong consumption growth." This should be mentioned in the text for balance. -- WGee 20:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is an article if you wish to add it [6]Flanker 20:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. -- WGee 20:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The image from the universal is actually very readable [7] What happens is that if you work on lower resolutions your browser will truncate an image to fit the screen, what you should to see it: If you use firefox click on the image turns into a magnifying glass, if you use explorer wait for an icon to expand to appear. Obviously you should increase your screen resolution too ;) It is fairly elementary for the web.Flanker 21:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Flanker, I have many different computers: sometimes I'm on my laptop, sometimes I'm not. The article should be viewable regardless: are you going to give that explanation to every Wiki reader who accesses the article?  :-) Not only is it hard to read, but it's in Spanish, so will English-speaking readers, with eyes as old as mine, just give up? Please try to find a reference which makes a similar statement in plain English: linking to bad copy of a jpg as a reference is just not good form. Sandy 21:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no other source of similar quality, it is also not a bad copy of a JPEG it is actually the original JPEG from El Universal, there is nothing really wrong with it and all browsers can put it truncated or in full resolution, removing it would detract from the article, or we could add the table above that can be easily read, but adding more clutter.Flanker 22:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

All you need is a statement that backs the claim of GDP growth in the non-petroleum sector. On first pass, I easily found several:[8] [9] [10] [11]. You, having better access to the local press, and speaking Spanish, should be able to find a better one. Sandy 00:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

But it is not the same, the graphic is neat with data on a bunch of sectors an quarters, sometimes tables are far far more efficient way to state data.Flanker 02:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I left the graphic as well, for those who want to struggle to read it. For those who prefer text, now they have both. The graphic is only good if you can see it and read it. And, an encyclopedia just does not need that level of detail: it's like giving voter tally percentages to the 100th decimal point. Sandy 02:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

After all, these numbers only make the same point made elsewhere: oil growth is not coming back because Chavez destroyed the industry and production has not recovered, while non-petroleum-industry growth and consumer consumption is being fueled by Chavez's subsidies, which are funded by the vast windfall from oil revenues. We don't need to see a lot of detail to know that Chavez is using the oil revenue to subsidize the rest of the growth, artificially. The detail per quarter and per industry doesn't tell any more of a story than the basic facts of Venezuela's economy. The economy is fragile, and subject to a crippling blow if oil prices fall. And the poor, who are subsidized, will suffer the worst. 03:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Extreme left winger

Words to the effect are constantly being replaced with comments that he is 'moderately socialist' or the like. Chavez is an extreme left winger, as is recognised even by left wing journalists such as Jonathan Charles from the BBC.

He is as an "extreme left-winger," according to Jonathan Charles on BBC Radio 4. (6 O'Clock News, May 12, 2006).

Chavez has begun land seizures along similar lines to Mugabe, directed against anyone that doesnt support him politically. You cannot get more stalinist than that.

The main page occasionally becomes totally POV and puts Chavez on a pedestal as some sort of moderately socialist/liberal peoples hero. Which couldnt be further from the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.53.210 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 19 June 2006

Your opinion of the truth is so far off I do not know if this really adds anything to the discussion, however let me end it by stating it is against policy to use terms like "extreme left-winger." [12] Flanker 23:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The main page occasionally becomes totally POV and puts Chavez on a pedestal as some sort of moderately socialist/liberal peoples hero. Yes, the article seems to have a Socialist bias. The POV is detailed on this talk page, and the article was removed as a Featured Article on Wikipedia. With the help of "facts", we can rewrite a more balanced article. If you have a verifiable and reliable source that calls Chávez an "extreme left winger", then we can consider whether the commentary is worth adding. Sandy 00:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if it is found it is against policy (corrected link) [13] Flanker 18:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding or misquoting the policy. Using your example:

"As an example: Jean-Marie Le Pen's National Front party is described by almost all commentators outside of the party as being 'far right', but they themselves deny this qualification. This has to be documented as such in the article of that party."

Wiki editors shouldn't describe someone as an extreme left winger. If the comment is a verifiable statement from a reliable source, it is fine for editors to consider whether the comment is worthy of encyclopedic content, and to state something like, "Chávez was described as an extreme left winger by so-and-so (fulano de tal)" and then counter that charge with a statement like, "but he denies that, and describes himself as X". You can't rewrite Wiki in such a way to preclude the entire and balanced story of Chávez from being told. Your list now includes no direct quotes from anyone other than Chávez, no speeches other than from Chávez, only one censored external link which you approve of, versus 12 external links pro-Chávez, and no quotes about Chávez which use words you don't want used. It begins to appear that you will put an obstacle to any attempt to attain a balanced, NPOV, brief encyclopedic entry about Chávez. We don't need to cover everything ever said or done: we do need to briefly introduce some balance into an article that is still almost entirely POV and unbalanced. You appear to have a reason for disallowing any anti-Chávez content into the article. Sandy 03:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Venezuela seeking a UNSC seat

Should this be added to the article? Is it too recent? [14] Here is a read.Flanker 17:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's premature. We don't know how newsworthy the issue will turn out to be yet, and we still need to shorten the article. Sandy 14:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"Irish Documentary"

Private television stations hostile to Chavez released pictures purportedly showing Chavistas firing from a bridge on anti-Chavez demonstrators below. However Irish filmmakers later realeased footage showing that there were in-fact no people below the bridge, and they were actually firing on snipers in adjacent buildings (http://trinicenter.com/cgi-bin/selfnews/viewnews.cgi?newsid1019109396,77031,.shtml) and (Venanalysis).

Maxrspct, several concerns with this passage:

• This again introduces references from the biased sources mentioned in the FARC, which we are working to reduce. Do you have a more reliable source supporting these statements?
• Have you checked the daughter articles? We are working on the size of the article, and I believe this discussion is covered in two other articles, Venezuelan coup attempt of 2002 and The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (documentary).
• There is a full debunking on those articles of the accuracy of this "documentary", so introducing the controversy into the main article doesn't seem helpful. If it is to be included here, then the entire rebuttal from the daughter articles will need to be included or summarized. I'm not sure what is accomplished by introducing a level of disputed detail to the main article which is included in daughter articles.

Sandy 14:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The old article had a very big accusation but not the counter claim that is heavy POV right there almost like excluding the Dodd report.Flanker 20:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Then propose a fix to the old article, rather than adding more content that is already covered in daughter articles. Sandy 21:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The Lead

I have again corrected the lead, and am not happy that I have had to add more references (not the direction we should be headed, particularly in the lead), so that valid statements from reliable sources can be reflected. Flanker, you continue to delete [15] the fact that Chavez has been criticized by far more than just the "Venezuelan middle and upper classes", so I've been forced to add what I consider to be unnecessary references. I have deleted the word "severely" from the original text, trying to address your concerns, even though I believe the word to be accurate in all cases. Will the deletion of the word "severely" settle the issue for you? If so, perhaps we can also delete the extra references. It is disingenous to state that criticism has not come from many sectors other than the Venezuelan upper and middle classes, and if you continue to insist upon that, should I then include dozens of references to criticism from many different sectors? Sandy 16:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleting the severe is enough for the HR orgs, but other leaders is misleading since it is only Garcia and he is president elect. I will just remove that portion. The other thing would be fixing the order the oposition is first (I will find a citation) Pres Bush 2nd and HR orgs third.Flanker 20:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on the order: it can be argued that HR orgs are more impartial than the Bush administration, and that their criticism is more important. Further, Bush was much too slow to wake up to Venezuela, and has been criticized domestically for not paying attention and for abandoning Venezuela, so I don't think he ranks above HR orgs in criticism. But I don't care how they are ordered, as long as the article no longer implies that the only criticism is coming from wealthy Venezuelans, because that's inaccurate. Garcia is not the only foreign leader: do you want me to have to add twenty more references, in order to keep content verifiably true? It's sad to see the lead carry a string of references to substantiate common knowledge, because you are disagreeing with brief and reasonable content revisions. Sandy 21:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the pre-revert version [16], detailing at minimum diplomatic disputes and criticism from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia. The problem with the Netherlands over Aruba hasn't even been mentioned. I'll add back in other foreign leaders. If you don't want a few words added to the lead, we can instead add back in all the laborious detail, with all the references, into the foreign policy section. The U.S. is not the only country having Chavez problems. Sandy 21:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing references

Flanker, if you can tell me what you're trying to do here, I might be able to help. Your change deleted an important piece of information from the reference (the page number: an article which references books or long articles without page numbers would not make an FA). I can help, if you let me know what you're trying to do: the change undid a correctly-done reference, and lost the page number. The first inline citation was correctly cited, referencing the cite in the References section. And, there's now an error at the bottom of the refs, so something is still wrong.Sandy 22:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Its frankly been a mess and I see what you were claiming before, the two reference vs notes is a disaster, only books should have references not pdfs since a page number can be added easily and a link is more important than a page.Flanker 22:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's tricky, but it makes sense now. I'm sorry to revert, but I'm afraid you were heading down the wrong path without realizing it -- you were deleting references, converting them to inline citations. Articles or books which are general references -- used many times -- are cited as References, and inline citations (Notes) can refer back to those references, particularly when page numbers are needed. I think the way they are done now is correct: I was careful to leave all Saravask's references, and refer back to them on the inline citations. There has been a discussion on featured articles that don't include page numbers, so I know it has become an issue. When we have page numbers, we should keep them. Hope this helps, Sandy 22:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Very well.Flanker 22:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Flanker, was it your aim to get the Carter references into the inline citations Notes), rather than as References? I've now learned how to do that, including page numbers, if that's what you want done. Let me know, and I can do it if you want. Sandy 15:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be very helpfull, every single reference creates a new note making it more burdensome to find a link, only books should be done this way IMHO not websites or PDFs.Flanker 20:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Before working on the change, I want to make sure we're understanding each other. Anything that lists a specific page number (which includes PDFs as well as books) should retain the page number. Any page numbers we have should be retained: this is being more strictly enforced on future FAs. If I make the change, the *first* time a certain reference is used, it will include the link and the full info and the page number, but subsequent entries from the same reference would just say something like McCoy and Neuman (2001), p. 73. That's the correct way of referencing. Is that what you want me to do? The only thing it will change is it will move the *first* instance of a reference from the References section to the Notes section, but all subsequent entries from the same source would stay the same. I would suggest doing this only for the Carter Center reports, because the books should remain listed as Saravask's general references for the article (that's the difference between inline citations - Notes - and References.) Sandy 22:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Economy section, references needed

Flanker, I deleted your statement about a six-point drop, because it referenced one month's worth of data, rather than annual data. Instead, I provided another source, which does substantiate a 10-point drop since 2003. (The Economist) Fine remove the uppermost reference, I just found it insane how a 6% drop in poverty is somehow negative.Flanker 20:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

On this statement: particularly in the non-oil sector, averaging 10% growth a year. Most of that growth was directed to the poorest sectors of society, with real income growth of 55% reported in two years.[85]

Which reference points to the 10% growth in the non-oil sector? On Reference 85, you've linked to a 14-page Spanish PDF. Can you please provide a page number for the 55% real income growth in the poorest sectors of society, so that others can locate the data and see how the terms are defined, particularly since the reference is in Spanish, the data used is not clear, and the PDF is from a "trusted" but "extraofficial" source. Thanks. Sandy 15:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

10% is here[17], on the PDF I did point out the page -> 8 there what Datos considers the poorest sectors of society -> E had their incomes double in nominal terms the past two years.Flanker 20:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Also need a reference for the CAP assassination comments. Unfortunately, Orlando Urdaneta does not have a Wiki entry, so the English-speaking readership of Wiki may not appreciate his popularity or notability. Sandy 15:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind removing the Orlando Urdaneta but the link should remain for what Shapiro said. I will find a CAP link.Flanker 20:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll look at those refs as soon as I get a chance: I'm sorry I mssed the page 8. I don't object to leaving Urdaneta, I just wish we had a way to convey his significance to people who don't know Venezuela. (In other words, it would be great if someone would create Orlando Urdaneta on Wiki :-) I don't know that much about him, other than hearing the name all the time. Also, the 6% drop in poverty is not negative: it's accuracy is suspect, since it uses a new definition. Sandy 22:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Done ! (Thanks to Caracas1830) Sandy 16:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Critcism section

Another task in this article should be to include rebuttals in the critcism section. Every anti-Chavez claim must be counterbalanced and the criticism section is not exempt from this rule. Particularly, I'm concerned with this passage:

His social programs are almost entirely performed in the service of dark-skinned mestizos and native peoples, while lighter-skinned European-descended Venezuelans are increasingly plaintive of racial discrimination in both government practice and society at large.

Such a polemical claim has to be sourced and, of course, balanced by a rebuttal. -- WGee 20:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If nobody objects, I will try to locate and include counterarguments when I work on the article later (but someone who speaks Spanish might be more capable than I). -- WGee 20:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

But you tagged the daughter article, Criticism of Hugo Chávez as unbalanced. Shouldn't this text be expanded over there, then summarized back to the main article here? It seems backwards to do the work here, then have to move it there, then summarize it back here. Sandy 22:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be the ideal way of going about it. But do we want/need to become entrenched in the Criticism article in order to fix this one? I think counterarguments can be inserted into the main article now, and then the same sources and more be used in the daughter article, even if the wording is slightly different. Right now I'm concerned with this article re-gaining its FA status; later we can worry about whether the main article and daughter article correspond exactly. -- WGee 01:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Since your main concern right now is to regain FA status, why don't we get organized and shorten the blooming thing, so we have less to work on? In other words, move some stuff to daughter articles, like a whole lot of criticism, foreign policy, history, etc. Sandy 02:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Another thought: like it or not, perhaps we already are entrenched in the Criticism topic. I'm adding, others are rebutting :-)) Why don't we just fix it over there, so we can cut it here and be done with it? We might get to the goal faster that way. As an example, one of my POV points was that Súmate wasn't addressed. I fixed it over there, and only needed one sentence here. Sandy 02:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, since you already started... But when I'm done my exams do you want me to address the daughter article first or the main article? Because I don't want to do both at once. :-) -- WGee 04:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well ... what I *really* think is: I still believe our first priority should be in shortening the main article. Until we shorten it, we don't know what we have left to work with, making it hard to know if we can remove the tags. I personally believe that removing tags should take precedence over achieving FA status, since the tags are seen by all current readers. We need to finish updating some sections, to removed the outdated tag. Part of removing the unbalanced tag involves fixing the Criticism article (and other daughter articles), moving content over there and summarizing it back here, and then seeing if we have achieved balance. It's hard for me to envision how we can fix this article without addressing the daughter articles, and a FA nomination would consider the daughter articles to some extent, as indicated by some previous comments on the nomination talk page. It would be great if we could all get on the same page, and not spin our wheels over things like one External Link, which may be resolved when we're closer to finished, and may resolve itself once the article achieves some balance. Sandy 12:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The counter arguments are needed indeed. First of all we have to look at every single link to see if it claims what is in the prose, the initial links all point to what happens in Venezuela not Chavez, why is it relevant? first it again points to the bias in the entire article about Chavez controlling everything, a great deal of those violations were commited by oposition forces (at one time the oposition controlled the top 3 police dept in Caracas). Second the political prisoners is also deeply one sided, Carlos Fernandez is living in the US today, Carlos Ortega fled to Costa Rica and later returned 2 years later with a false ID/cedula, and was caught gambling in a bingo hall (so much for fear of persecution). To date he is the only Chavez oponnent/political prisoner in jail (no reporters jailed either), of course the government denies he is a political prisoner but an agent provocateur. Flanker 20:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's relevant because Chavez eliminated separation of powers, consolidating all power in the presidency, eliminated independence of the judiciary, and created Bolivarian Circles to do his police work. Chased out capital, destroyed PDVSA, and weakened the economy. Gave police carte blanche, weakened the military. Made Venezuela a conduit for Colombian drug trafficing. His policies as "President for Life" with no balance of powers and no one else to blame. Well, that is, no one else except the corrupt complacency of the generations and administrations which spawned him. I don't understand why you don't write that section: all that the previous administrations and upper class did to deserve what they got: an end to democracy as they knew it. Sandy 02:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried to fix the subheadings added by another editor (Yewlongbow), but I'm stymied. The sub-headings don't encompass the text in each section: I fixed one, but realized it made no sense, and others need fixing as well. On the other hand, dividing the text into categories may make sense. But, they seem to chop the text into very small sections. But again ... if the sections are going to grow, maybe they should be divided? What do others suggest about how to repair this? If we leave the sub-headings, they aren't correct as they stand. Splitting the sections up and expanding them seems to defeat the purpose of using Summary Style, since expansion of the article should be happening in Criticism of Hugo Chávez, and then summarized back to the main article. My recommendation is that we delete the sub-headings here, respecting Summary Style, but adopt similar subheadings in the daughter article, since the sub-headings there are divided by group making the criticism, which seems less sensible than grouping by what the criticism is.Sandy 22:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

From a stylistic point of view, I never liked the use of headings in the Critcism section, for the text under each heading is much too short (raising the question of why headings are even needed). And like you said, expanding the sections defeats the purpose of using Summary Style. Thus, I agree with your proposed removal of the subheadings. -- WGee 01:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Gone. They were only added today by the same editor who added racism. Headings might work if it weren't for 1) this needs to be Summary Style - use the headings in the daughter article, 2) they add to the article length, and 3) they didn't describe the text. I've seen references to Chavez furthering racism and class hatred, but I've not got time to go looking for them, and hope the original author, who added that text, will do that work. My To Do list is too long already. I left a talk page message. Sandy 02:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have included a new section on Chávez's anti-Semitism. It bears little resemblence to my initial claims of racism, and I MADE SURE TO SOURCE IT before enough time passed to receive another such warning. Rest assured, once I find adequate source material, the earlier racism charge will reappear, this time IN THE CORRECT PLACE, NOT ON THE CHÁVEZ PAGE. I apologize for my mistake--I'm still new at this. Yewlongbow 03:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The report by the Stephen Roth Institute is not pertinent to Hugo Chavez. It states: "While no antisemitically motivated physical assaults were recorded, there were numerous expressions of antisemitism in the media." If you read further, you will find that none of these remarks were made by Chavez himself, but by media outlets acting independently of Chavez (despite how much the report attempts to attribute everything to Chavez). Remember, the only relevant criticism is criticism about Chavez himself, not about pro-Chavez media outlets or Venezuelan leftists in general.

It also accuses Chavez of anti-Semitism merely because of his inspiration by "ultra left-wing" figures who are allegedly anti-Semitic. The report states: "Congressmen Luis Tascon and Dario Vivas, for example, both compared Israel’s killing of Palestinians to the Nazi slaughter of Jews." Such an analogy is tasteless and polemically ironic, but I would hardly call it anti-Semitic, as it does not express hostility towards or prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group. Regardless of that, it fails to explain why Chavez is guilty of anti-Semitism, other than by association.

On a side note, without condoning any of the anti-Semitic remarks made, I am not impressed by the Institute's lack of distinction between what is anti-Semitic and what is anti-Israeli government/foreign policy.

--WGee 03:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link I found on the Criticism article's talk page: [18]. It contains some exact text, and indicates that, although Chavez did make what could be construed as an anti-semitic remark, those remarks were subsequently blown out of context by the media. Hope this helps, Sandy 13:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Btw, welcome to Wikipedia, and don't let my criticism of your edits scare you away from it. -- WGee 04:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Wanted to add another welcome, Yewlongbow. Not to worry: I'm new at this, too. You can't break Wiki :-) Your subheadings, even though they may not work here, were helpful as they gave me an idea for how to better set up Criticism of Hugo Chávez, so that we can focus some of this work over there. The problem here is that the article content is already about twice the recommended size, for concerns of not over-burdening the reader with too much prose. Summary Style provides detail in daughter articles, with a summary in the main article. I will try to re-organize the Criticism article later today into sections along the lines of your subheadings, so that we can get more focused over there. When you can source the racism comments, it might be helpful to suggest the additions first on talk page, so that others can help work on the wording before it gets added. Again, welcome! Sandy 12:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Preliminary outline for organizing criticism

Here is a preliminary outline for reorganizing Criticism of Hugo Chávez. I don't want to begin moving text around over there until others concur: please help me out with organization and headings. TIA, Sandy 14:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

New criticism article

I put up the complete reorganization of the Criticism of Hugo Chávez article, which at this stage, is just a compilation of all of the criticism from the several different articles. It still needs a lot of tweaking and work, there are large gaps of criticism that have never been covered anywhere, it has some overlap, is missing sources, is unbalanced; but it gives us everything in one place, so that we can hopefully all work on the same page, and then bring whatever is needed back to the main article, in summary style. Sandy 20:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Premature photo deletion

172, your deletion of photos was premature, since those sections of text have yet to be updated from the pre-revert. The discussion of the Peru problem has not yet been updated, it's a significant example of Chavez foreign policy, nor has the media section. When the text is updated, the photos are the best for illustration. Sorry. Too much to do all at once. [19] Sandy 00:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Article size check

I checked the article size in several stages, to see what generates the most KB.

• Current overall size: 104KB
• Delete templates at top of article, Categories, Interwikis, Commons, and See other: 102KB
• Delete External links: 99KB
• Delete Images and daughter article links: 95KB
• Delete Templates (voter tally and Bol. Missions): 95KB
• Delete Notes and References: 89 KB

I was surprised that the templates add very little, while the External Links add 3 KB ??

Current prose size is 89KB, vs. recommended max of 50KB. Sandy 12:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Working on wording and prose

WGee, regarding two recent edits:

• We do need to somehow reference that his use of the word "Bolivarian" is by his interpretation and is disputed, since his views differ radically from those of Bolivar in many areas, and are influenced by Marxism and other ideologies. This was covered in the old talk pages, and was raised again in the last month [20]. This was dealt with in the FA version by using the "he terms" or "he refers to" wording. Some wording to that effect needs to be included: we can't just wholesale claim anything Chavez professes would be supported by Bolivar. It is pointed out later in the article that most of his followers really refer to chavismo. Bolivarianism was an effective PR ploy Chavez used to sell himself to those who might not be scholars of Bolivar. [21]

That's not a problem; I just didn't like the way the sentence sounded. Didn't mean to diminish the implications of the sentence. -- WGee 16:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, can you reword that one in the lead, re-introducing something? Your prose is superior to mine :-) Sandy 17:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the term "Bolivarian Revolution" was coined by Chavez, and it refers precisely to the massive social reforms initiated by him, doesn't it? I think there is a distinction between the Bolivarian Revolution (which was invented/led by Chavez) and Bolivarianism (the ideology invented by Bolivar that Chavez merely claims to embody). -- WGee 02:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

In both cases, the words have little to do with the eponym, Bolivar. Is that made clear yet in the article? Sandy 18:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding peers in the military [22]: I added that thought, and changing it to "some" doesn't fully address my tortured prose. The idea was to address the misinformation that was conveyed in earlier versions of the article (criticism only from the well off). It comes from just about everywhere, including the ranks from which he rose -- the military -- and we still haven't added the working class (re PDVSA). Perhaps you can find an even better way to phrase that thought: the idea is that he is criticized "by his own" in the military, regardless of whether peers, subordinates, or superiors. Another glaring omission in the FA article was no mention of the protest by the military in Plaza Altamira. Sandy 13:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that he was criticized by his own army comrades is appropriately articulated, I feel. I understand that you want that to be emphasized more in the text, but to do so would be to imply that criticism from one's aquaintances is particularly important and bears added weight. I disagree with that notion, however. -- WGee 16:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think it's worded appropriately now, we can leave it. Sandy 17:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Additionally, if/when Flanker accepts that criticism comes from many sectors, I'd like to see us drop the repeat inline citations from the lead, and refer to them in the text. They are cluttering up the lead, but I was forced to add them due to Flanker's reverts. Sandy 13:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if we come to a consensus, there could be numerous NPOV disputes raised by newcomers who refute the criticisms (and who haven't bothered to read the criticism section). Because the critique is rather hefty, and to promote stability, it might be appropriate to keep the citations (though maybe one for each point, rather than two or three). -- WGee 16:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Or, maybe we could combine all the references at the end of the entire sentence, so that the sentence is not so cluttered ? I'll do that now, to see how it looks. Sandy 17:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I liked it better as it was before, to be honest. The current arrangement of the references makes it difficult for readers to associate the notes with their respective allegations. -- WGee 17:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll revert (and take out that wayward comma). Sandy

My issue with critiscism is that it is heavily unbalanced, the governemnt constantly reminds people that they are not all powerfull and despite what Sandy said above they did not control all branches of govenrment since the begining the Supreme Court ruled many times against them the Assembly was near 50% and many regional and mayors were oposition controlled, only today can the be assumed to have considerable control over all branches of government to be found liable of what rogue cops and the like do.Flanker 23:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Doublecheck wording and facts in Early life section

Chávez was born on July 28, 1954 ... attend high school at the Daniel Florencio O'Leary School, graduating with a science degree. [16] ... At age seventeen, [ ed note: that means 1971 ] Chávez enrolled at the Venezuelan Academy of Military Sciences. After graduating in 1975 as a sub-lieutenant with master's degrees in military science and engineering ...

We need to check the facts and terminology here, because the numbers don't add up. First, graduating with a science degree from high school is a bit misleading, because a high school diploma is referred to as a bachiller en ciencias. Can someone verify that this terminology just refers to a high school degree? Next, if he enrolled in the Academy at 71, how did he have two master's degrees in 4 years, when a typical Bachelor's degree in Venezuela is 5 years? The reference for this section appears to be this which says, "graduándose de Bachiller en Ciencias" and "Licenciado en Ciencias y Artes Militares, Mención Terrestre, Especialidad Comunicaciones, en la Academia Militar de Venezuela," so where do we get two Master's degrees out of that, and there is no mention of engineering, rather a specialty in communications and military arts?

Chávez was raised with his five siblings , but the reference above says he had 3 siblings: can someone clarify (stepsiblings, half siblings maybe?) ?

Methinks this whole article needs to be more thoroughly checked. Can anyone clarify? Sandy 20:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

An anon editor changed the son-in-law as being married to a different Chavez daughter, casting further doubt on the accuracy of this section. [23] Since it was an anon editor, we don't know the reason for the change. Does anyone have any references to double check the accuracy of this entire section? Sandy 14:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The basic question about Chavez

The basic question is:

1. 1 With all the oil and other resource wealth in Venezuela, why did decades of conservative government fail to lower one of the highest poverty rates in Latin America?

Had they done so Chavez would never have been taken seriously as a political candidate.

1. 2 And, for US citizens, why did we support governments that did so little about poverty. Where did the AID money go?

Signed:Travb (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The answer can be summed up easily as this: the price of oil dropped (I might argue unacceptably low) for two decades. During the 80's the government refused to tackle this issue head on, given that there was an 'alliance' with the US whose policy was to cripple OPEC and the price of oil. Then during the late 80's most of the 90's there was an official neo-liberal economic policy, and oil policy was even worse, the goal was to produce 6 million barrels a day with prices near the abyss of 8-15$. Venezuela is currently in boom mode because the price of oil and because the government is sowing that oil, consumer confidence is the highest more than a decade too.Flanker 22:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Another answer: the method of producing official statistics with regard to poverty levels was changed in 2003 because after three years of showing how poverty levels continued to escalate according to the government official numbers, Chavéz decided that the "neo-liberal statistics" did not reflect what "poverty" meant according to the Bolivarian Revolution. Official numbers on poverty levels after 2003 are just no reliable. The monhly 60$ given to those participating in the Bolivarian Missions are hardly improving the poverty levels, unless the statistical methods are changed. It might be fair to say (my opinion) that even with such high oil prices, the economical situation is still declining. The "aid" from the US (yet not that much aid directed toward the improvement of poverty came in from the US because the oil prices were high until the late 90's when this was balanced by improving production to its peak resulting that oil still provided for over 80% of the national budget) was in the past consumed by corruption as income from high oil prices continues to be consumed by a "revolutionary" form of corruption. (Caracas1830 23:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

The last meassurable change in how poverty statistics were handled occured in 98 when Venezuela moved away from their own meassurement of canasta alimenticia to a more standardized Andean canasta Afterwards it has remained the same: poverty equals households earning below the canasta alimenticia x 2 (also known as the canasta basica) and exreme poverty are households earning below the canasta alimenticia if you want I can find out the exact sum in Bs, poverty dropped steadily until 2002 when the work stoppages and coup destabilized the economy. -> [24] It increased rapidly during the oil strike and after the economy recovered started dropping again. The government releases another poverty indicator to include their social programs but it is not the one used and published traditionally.Flanker 07:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The corruption of previous President than Chávez was really high. Corruption has always been really high in Venezuela. The reason why Chávez won as a President is because people the abstention was really high, and many people vote for Chávez in order to punish the two main political parties for the mess that did in the country.

Regarding your second question, I have no idea. May be because we were one of the strongest democracies in South America. May be because we were a cooperator regarding the war drugs. For many years, Venezuelan citizens could get a permanent visa to go to the United States. Now, is totally different. May be because we provide oil to the United States. Even with all the issues that Venezuela had, it was in a better position in South American than many other countries. You can ask the same question about Mexico. Venezuela is the fifth oil exporter in the Venezuela; Mexico was the eight (I do not know if that number has changed). Mexico is the second or three oil provider to US; Venezuela the fifth. Look what Mexico is and its has received a lot of help of US too, probably more than Venezuela. --llanio 13:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• During Aló Presidente No 217, April 3th 2005 Chávez announced the following: “Han salido algunos informes del Instituto Nacional de Estadística que nosotros respetamos. Yo no voy a decir que son falsos, pero en esos informes se dice que en estos últimos cinco años la pobreza en Venezuela se ha incrementado y yo revisé aquello con mucho cuidado, y me consigo con cosas como éstas. Y no tengo dudas de que los instrumentos que están usando para medir la realidad no son los indicados... no son los adecuados, están midiendo nuestra realidad como si este fuese un país neoliberal, un país capitalista donde no estuviese ocurriendo ninguna revolución”[25]. These happend even after, Elías Eljuri Abraham president of the Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE) declared in 2004 that the original methods were not showing the influence of government programs and declared that "as of today we are dedicated to measure the influence of social programs and to determine their effects on the life conditions of the population"[26]. The actual method currenty used to measure poverty levels is unknown yet different to international standards. These are important details that need to be, perhaps, on the main article on the economy section. (Caracas1830 13:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC))

Notice that neither claim the definition changed just that they were looking for "better" ways to meassure poverty, the INE continuously denies changing the definition of the bread and butter monetary poverty:

"Según explicó Elías Eljuri, las cifras presentadas por el instituto en esta oportunidad miden la pobreza sólo por el nivel de ingreso de los hogares. "

"Aclaró que las cifras presentadas no incluyen el efecto que han logrado en el tema la aplicación de los programas sociales del actual gobierno y que esto será presentado en otra oportunidad." The interview was made in Dec last year[27] The government toys with the idea of creating a new metric, but NOT replacing the old one which will still be around to compare and contrast.Flanker 21:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This situation should make anybody wonder... why poverty levels decreased so rapidly from 2005, right after Chávez's announcemnt in Aló Presidente? 14.6% in one year? why other studies shows an increase of poverty?(Caracas1830 12:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC))

Travb: I'd point out a couple of things, as an outside observer (not a perfect one though). First, that not all pre-Chavez governments were "conservative". They may be considered to be so when retroactively compared to Chavez, but some of them were pretty "progressive" in their own right (and even populist), during their respective contexts. Second, the fact is that poverty is a structural problem, not something that can be resolved without taking great risks and making sacrifices. Past Venezuelan governments actually did at times improve the plight of the poor, reducing inequality and extending the coverage of public services (something which Chavez has also done), but they never really took the risk of substantially reforming society in order to erradicate poverty in a consistent and lasting manner. The fact is that oil became the fuel of Venezuelan prosperity and, while the bonanzas lasted, the government could afford to be generous with pretty much everybody, corruption or no corruption. But once the prices of oil went down, the government couldn't (and/or also chose not to, depending on your point of view) sustain that generosity. The poor soon began feeling the practical consequences of their real status once again, and already existing corruption became all too apparent. In those circumstances, a former "golpista" shows up, promising to fight the system's corruption and, basically, to return Venezuela to its former glory. That sounded very attractive, not only to the poor but also to several parts of the middle class, and that was it. Of course, other than that, Chavez did not entirely make all of his intentions and methods clear (which later also disillusioned some of those that originally voted him in...and corruption has not disappeared either).

As for 1.2, this may be a bit out of line, but I'll still say it: Wherever it went, the issue never actually mattered to the U.S. in the first place and it still doesn't. Especially after the end of the Alliance for Progress (though it had its own limitations, I know), U.S. administrations have generally not been that helpful at all. Why? Simply put, external poverty is not a serious U.S. policy concern. The existance of high levels of poverty in other nations doesn't really matter, as long as strategic U.S. interests are unaffected. In the meanwhile, almost everything else can be tolerated or promoted. Most of the aid currently provided, at least to Latin America, has been either merely symbolic (even if the total figures sound impressive on paper), outright hypocritical when contrasted with U.S. economic demands on plenty of other fronts, or simply counterproductive (if aid is not properly designed and efficiently implemented, it only becomes a waste for everybody involved, other than the corrupt on both sides). Juancarlos2004 16:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your second question, IMO that goes beyond the scope of this article, and we've got a lot of work to do here. Regarding your first question, I have (at least twice, on this talk page) questioned why text addressing these factors has not been included. Flanker indicated it wasn't necessary. Quotes from the talk page above:

From POV list:

• Is there any discussion of the AD/COPEI corruption, which birthed Chávez? SandyGeorgia
  • Why is it needed? aside from one sentence? Flanker

One sentence would cover it. Surely you jest in asking why it's needed ? Failing to define the political parties in any way in the article, or discuss the environment which allowed a "Chavez" to happen renders the article incomprehensive and unbalanced. There is no mention of the "hope" that Chavez gave to the impoverished, and the context that existed prior to his appearance. Sandy 15:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's relevant because Chavez eliminated separation of powers, consolidating all power in the presidency, eliminated independence of the judiciary, and created Bolivarian Circles to do his police work. Chased out capital, destroyed PDVSA, and weakened the economy. Gave police carte blanche, weakened the military. Made Venezuela a conduit for Colombian drug trafficing. His policies as "President for Life" with no balance of powers and no one else to blame. Well, that is, no one else except the corrupt complacency of the generations and administrations which spawned him. I don't understand why you don't write that section: all that the previous administrations and upper class did to deserve what they got: an end to democracy as they knew it. Sandy 02:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely, with everything else VenAnalysis coughs up, it can provide some wording to address what allowed a Chávez to happen to Venezuela’s democracy. The US State Dept's The State of Democracy in Venezuela manages at least a brief mention in its one page summary of the hearings:[28]

• The election of Hugo Chavez in 1998 came at a time when Venezuelans were looking for an alternative to the lethargy and corruption of old-line political parties. The Venezuelan electorate gave Chavez the opportunity to create a new consensus around the development and modernization of the country. Instead, Chavez embraced a repressive political agenda that has polarized the country, created political upheaval, marginalized the opposition, suffocated the democratic debate, and resisted external efforts to support democratic political activity."

(And that's without mentioning what he's done to the economy, poverty, inflation, unemployment, internal and external debt, failing infrastructure, crime, corruption, devaluation of the currency and exchange controls, etc.)

I'm still astounded that this article -- supposedly featured at one point – never addresses the factors that spawned a "Chavez" (the article presumes he was a popular choice based on his what – charisma? bloody violent coup? vulgar colloquialisms?) or the hope that he gave and continues to give the poor, which leads to the next criticism: that the very people he gave hope to have been the most negatively affected by his policies and empty promises, and will be by far the worst affected if oil prices fall and his subsidies disappear. They continue to have hope because no one else gives it to them. And, when their hope falters, Chavez can just nationalize and subsidize more Colombians, Ecuadorians, Bolivians, and Peruvians who will help keep him in power (and then Venezuela can be touted as a haven for refugees, without mentioning votes bought :-)) [29]

Sandy 16:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

From: Talk:No_Gun_Ri#juan:

Why is me being a casual contributor to this article good? Take for example: Talk:Hugo_Chávez#The_basic_question_about_Chavez I posed a question on that talk board about Chavez. In my opinion, the very best answer did not come from a Venezulean, but from a Colombian (Juancarlos2004). All of the Venezualens simply used my question as a springboard to push their own POV/pet ideology, and really never answered the question. Sometimes when a person begins to become an expert on a subject, they become more biased, not less. This seems particuarly true on wikipedia. (the most evenhanded editors of this article (No_Gun_Ri) may be non-American, non-Korean wikipedians)

Signed: Travb (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sandy comments: I agree with you Sandy that the history of Venzuala needs to be mentioned: why did Chavez happen? Historical events don't happen in vaccums.

That said Sandy, I am troubled by some of your edits. I have noticed in my casual observance of this article, that you have deleted sentences which don't fit into your own POV. You will probably ask, which ones? I don't care to dig them up, because I really don't care about this subject as much as you or others do. I am sure others will.

As I have argued before, both sides of the argument, even opposing arguments, actually strenghtens your own argument. Lets all keep that in mind.

Thanks for all your hard work on this article Sandy. You seem much, much more knowledable about this issue than most people.Travb (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive and critical comments. I know some of the issues (which may or may not have made it into the international media), and since I'm not Venezuelan, I see some of them from both sides: in "real life", I am highly critical of the role played by the "oligarchy" in the end of Venezuelan democracy. I have always told them, frequently, individually, in groups, and to their faces, they are guilty of the three C's which summarize the reasons my family left Venezuela (complacency, comfort, and corruption - which have continued equally under Chávez). Comment on the elements and environment which "caused" Chávez are a glaring weakness in the article, and will probably be resisted by those "upper classes" so often referred to here. But, they're not editing anyway: they're in Europe enjoying the World Cup, and take VERY little interest in Wikipedia or any other information or misinformation about Chávez. The systemic bias that exists in these articles is *not* in the direction many presume. Also, although I know the issues, I am no longer in Venezuela and do not have access to many resources needed to really address this article. It continues to trouble me that the revert, while yielding a better article, does seem to have alienated editors who could fill in the missing pieces effectively. I won't ask you to cough up edits I've made which support your statement, but I will continue to try to preserve what good prose did exist on the FA version, and try to prevent the article from deteriorating, by removing to the talk page any edits which aren't referenced, are not intelligible, which further bloat an already too long article with content covered elsewhere, or which don't fit contextually into the article. Sandy 17:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Sandy, FYI, I share your POV. I just seem to have a policy of offending everyone equally, no matter what their political persuasion. Best wishes on the article. Maybe I should get involved in the edits--albiet I probably know less than everyone here about Venezuala, especially yourself. Travb (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization of chavista

Some of the instances of chavista are capitalized, and others aren't. I believe it is correctly uncapitalized: can someone verify which is correct Spanish? Sandy 17:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There are few things that are capitalized by convention venezuelan for one is lower case all of it.Flanker 22:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought. So, do we confuse English-speaking readers by following Spanish-language custom of not capitalizing, or do we capitalize??? Venezuelan is capitalized in English, so do we capitalize Chavista? Is there a Wiki policy on this ?? Sandy 22:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

In Spanish a demonym should be uncapitalized (as well as days and months). In English is exactly the opposite. Words such as "Venezuelan" should remain capitalized, because it's being translated. However, IMO "chavista" should remain uncapitalized, because we're taking the exact same word from Spanish. If we find a translation for chavista (e.g. Chavist, but that is very wrong :-D) then that would be capitalized. I could be wrong though, I'm no translation expert. --Enano275 01:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me: that when we're using the word actually in Spanish, we follow the Spanish-speaking customs (chavista). Sandy 02:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Domestic Policy

I notice in this section that the text is quick to point out what is the opinion of Chavez supporters, but it fails to label criticism as what it is. For example:

but his policies are most vulnerable in the areas of corruption, jobs and crime -- This is not a fact; this is criticism from The Economist, a neoliberal and thus anti-Chavez news magazine.

The changes he initiated to the Constitution of Venezuela consolidated all the powers of state into his own hands -- This, again, is criticism presented as fact. And the subsequent sources do not suggest this exaggeration to be true.

At the same time, the administration's unwillingness to utilize private sector resources has resulted in a crumbling public infrastructure and a deficit in housing. -- This is The Economist arguing for an increased role of the private sector in the economy, as it usually does. Not only would Chavez supporters disagree with this, but so would many left-wing economists. Thus, this must be labelled as criticism.

For the record this can easily be countered, the government is involving the private sector in a sense, there are plenty of highly beneficial loans and part payments for homes that the government gives out, those homes are bought from the private sector.Flanker 22:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll be searching the article more thoroughly later to scour out any more breaches of neutrality .

--WGee 18:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

My bad (newbie alert :-) I was trying to stick to the text in the articles, and failed to make the kinds of corrections your edits include. I'll go back and review those recent edits as well, although I think you've caught all the edits I made to Domestic policy (which were almost all made in the past few days). Sandy 18:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, as long as you acknowledge it. :-)

The Missions have overseen widespread experimentation in what Chávez supporters term citizen- and worker-managed governance.

For the reader's sake, these "experiments" should be described in detail (e.g. employee ownership of 49% of shares and state ownership of 51% of shares, worker participation in board meetings, as described here and elsewhere).

Also, the section should describe more than his Bolivarian Missions, since the critique points to his macroeconomic management, anti-corruption measures, drug and crime policy, and constitutional and democratic reforms. More of that needs to be described in detail.

--WGee 18:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't help there: every time I've tried to understand how these parallel institutions relate to the traditional government institutions and the bigger picture, I've made no progress. I continue to say, if it's not clear to someone familiar with Venezuela, it's not going to be clear to the unitiated reader. [30] I can't write those sections. Same for the huge gap that still exists in the article: that it doesn't discuss the environment of corruption and complacency by previous administrations, that spawned Chavez. I've raised it several times now, and it's not something I feel qualified to write. I did see that Travb raises the same point (above), although he takes his argument beyond the scope of this article. Sandy 18:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not impressed with the current state of the Domestic Policy section. For one, there is more criticism of his policies than actual explanation of them. And what we have in this section is the objective point of view (i.e. a neutral explanation of Chavez's policies and their stated aims) and the critics' point of view, but not the supporters' point of view. How is this balanced at all? -- WGee 17:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

{{sobalanceit}} As I've explained above, I have been unable to get explanations of his programs I can understand, I'm not in Venezuela, and I don't read long, legalistic documents in Spanish easily, so someone else needs to balance it by explaining just what his policies are and what his supporters say about them. The link to Conexion Social, for example, and the discussion of the Communal Councils is still frustrating me, as I have no idea what their relevance is, or what they intend to demonstrate. I can add reliable, verifiable content, but I can't help it if others can't add or explain his policies. Also, I'm not sure I agree with you, given the excessive length devoted to his various Bolivarian Missions throughout the article. Perhaps those sections just are not well written, so that we never get a sense of what his domestic policy is, other than handing out money to remain in power? Perhaps some of the chronological discussions of his various missions should be taken out of the upper sections, and moved to the individual policy sections. Or deleted. We still need to get the article down to half of what it is, and as I said many times, the article was only going to grow when all sides of the story were told. Sandy 17:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the positives are sumarized succintly wheras the negatives are almost copy pastes from the articles linked. A lot of it is not needed and can be easily summarized as above. Comunal councils link is a direct link to what the law is no bias, no nothing.Flanker 19:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to balance it, but it's difficult for someone who has no knowledge of Spanish (can't find many English sources that describe Venezuelan domestic policy in detail). -- WGee 20:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but we may have alienated or lost some editors with the revert. I'm wondering if we might ping Ozzyprv ?? Or if anyone else comes to mind? All of the "Mission" content just isn't gelling into a comprehensive overview. Sandy 20:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Missions article

WGee, have you looked at Bolivarian Missions? Caracas1830 has done a lot of work over there, and this seems to be another area where we have too much overlapping content. I just don't see how we can really fix this article without addressing the daughter articles. That article is also unbalanced, as the criticism is being added here, and there is almost none there. (There is also a glaringly misleading graphic of unemployment that needs to be deleted: it uses a common means of overemphasizing and distorting statistics, by the scale chosen for the graph.) Are we going to describe his programs here or there, and are we going to add criticism here or there, and then how do avoid ending up with overlap of criticism in 3 places (here, the Criticism article, and the Missions article)? Sandy 12:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixing up all of these daughter articles first is quite a daunting task, but it's not a major priority of mine; an overlapping of criticism is something I can live with for now. And as for the unemployment graphic, it points out the context of the unemployment, something that Flanker and I both feel is necessary to mention. Unemployment caused by opposition-led strikes and coups is not a reflection of Chavez's economic management skills, despite how the Economic Policy section makes it seem that way. -- WGee 18:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Lead: explanation of regional diplomatic relations

I expanded a previous mention of Chavez's relationships with Castro and Morales to form a new paragraph. Do people support the inclusion of such a paragraph? -- WGee 04:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"Right wing"? Hardly. Some editors need to reflect more deeply on what NPOV means. 141.153.125.31 04:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I removed everything, it really was not an introduction and it was getting really really crowded (the guy has plenty of detractors I will give you that) the only thing that needs fixing now are broken references but it baffles me why they are not working.Flanker 06:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Flanker removed it before I saw it, and with all the dangling sentences and other things I was cleaning up this morning, and the changes back and forth, I really had a hard time deciphering what was what. I tried to return it to something akin to the latest, better version, but I'm not sure I succeeded. I do support some mention of something about his troubled relationships in Latin America, since he *supposedly* stands for "Latin American integration and cooperation": I do agree it's important to point out his record in that area is not impressive. I'm sorry if I reverted back to the wrong version, or left anything out, but I liked the prior version much more than Flanker's. Sandy 15:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

PS - given the ongoing talk page discussions (above and here) about work on the lead, I wish you would favor consensus over "boldness", but that's just my own editing predilection. Sandy 16:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it is an introduction which should summarize and leave the work to article in question, right now it is a mess, Latin American integration is actually much closer than before specially if AMLO wins only Peru was an exception, a noisy exception but nevertheless, Uribe was going to win in Colombia regardless and Chavez has not expressed preference in leftist candidates there. I will see how to fix the references but right now it is not a lead or introduction.Flanker 20:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Peru is not the only exception. WGee and I discussed (see above) whether the lead was burdened by the references, and decided to leave it as is (for now): again, when consensus has been established, I tend to favor consensus over boldness. I again suggest working on the substantive issues in the article before getting bogged down in details that can be cleaned up when we're closer to a finished product. Sandy 21:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess it can hold on for now it is just sad to see it grow when it is a simple introduction that can be summarized as: local regional and continental or somesuch, as for the pronunciations they are mostly election circusses the only one with potential to be hostile in the long run is Peru.Flanker 21:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV issues

Some editors here have been very careless in their changes and reverts or apparently do not feel that they are bound by policies and guidelines in writing credible, verifiable, and neutral encyclopedia articles.

First of all, the claim staked in the article is that he "is known for" his governance. He can not be known for democratic governance when his commitment to democracy is itself disputed. This is elementary. There is no incrementalist distinction made between "democratic socialist" and "socialist"; the common denominator is they they are socialist. Articles do not need to have leads which stake out claims on the leaders' avowed democratic principles. This is a selective attribution to Chavez which highlights a POV issue. If he claims to be a democrat (which he does) then the article should say that this is his claim. That is a self-reference. It is highly inappropriate, for such a contentious issue, for this encyclopedia to bolster his self-references.

As for classes, this is another mode of analysis which Hugo himself supports. He is a man of the poor and the people who oppose him, oppose him because they are wealthy. The source given does not verify this, it merely asserts that "many" such people do oppose him. This is true, but it is quite distinct from saying that "many Venezuelans of upper and middle classes" oppose him. This attempts to define out those who are poor and oppose him and to label opposition as having the necessary causation of socioeconomic status. That is an egregious NPOV violation and is unnecessary.

The wording on "left" and "right" governments effects much the same tone - leftists should be inclined to give support whereas those who do not are naturally on the right. This is not true. The most recent and notable backlash comes from a figure who is a man of the (moderate) left. This is not "cautious support", which in many cases merely amounts to the continuation of friendly relations; it is outright opposition. It is not accurate to say that by virtue of not actively opposing Chavez that one is cautiously supporting him. This is true of most of the unnamed moderate leftists in the region. Hence the change is unnecessary and inaccurate.

I also reinstated the fleshed out account of the terrorism issue. This version is much more precise about what is accused and in what context. SuperFlanker initially conflated the issue of direct material support to "links to terrorism". He corrected himself on this, but upon an examination of my insertion on what US policy-makers actually hold in this regard, he claims that it is tit-for-tat. No, it is not. It is a source, and a concise statement for, what the assertions are in the first place.

I reworded a section which talked about Chavez's "emotional bond" and spoke in euphemisms of Chavez's effective purge of the military of opposition members and sympathizers. The section was even modified recently and yet nobody saw that speaking of an "emotional bond" is inappropriate language and subtext for an ostensibly neutral encyclopedia article.

These sort of problems are sporadically littered throughout the article and need addressed, not ignored and exacerbated with new and similarly problematic contributions. It is good that the issue of sourcing is being seriously undertaken by some editors, and I hope this effort continues. But that is very clearly not the only problem with this article. 151.205.56.147 05:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Good description of the problems, of which there are many more than you describe. We have again become distracted by tit for tat wording edits, when the entire tone of the article is still a promotion of Chavez's self claims and a glowing campaign ad in his favor. The overall POV of the article is still an issue, and if we don't get busy fixing it, we should change the unbalanced tag to a POV tag. Work has been much too slow on correcting the imbalance. Sandy 12:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

But does not claim to be a socialist either, the closest thing is socialism for the XXI century, so either it is socialism for the XXI century with no wikilinks or democratic socialism with wikilinks that ecyclopedically defines his govenrment.

The upper and middle classes oppose him it is VERIFIED by wikipedia standards (ie it is in the article) besides it is REALITY the upper classses oppose him and the lower classes support him check the polls: [31]

Not another unreferenced jpeg on someone's personal website :-) The way the statements that were changed by 151.205.56.147 were worded was not supported by this data, especially not for a lead. Some Venezuleans of all classes have criticized him, just as some Venezuelans of all classes have supported him. Generally, he is criticized by Venezuelans, period. It may be appropriate somewhere in the text to mention that he has more support from certain classes, and less from others: it would be ridiculous to deny that he has more support among the poorest sectors, but that is not what the statement in the lead said. Further, it is patently ridiculous to call someone who has done so much damage to democratic institutions a "democrat". Sandy 17:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As for support for terrorism you are completely distorting what they claim which is taken out verbatim.Flanker 17:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand how this article could possibly have a pro-Chavez bias when there is so much unbalanced criticism in the article. Also, what "promotion of Chavez's self claims" and "glowing campaign ads" are you referring to? I've already pointed out that in the Domestic Policy section there is more criticism of his policies than explanation of them, and in the Criticism section there are no rebuttals. The critics' point of view is well-presented, while the supporters' point of view is glossed over. -- WGee 18:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The anon editor (above) gave examples. I haven't begun to work on other sections yet, as there has been too much to do. The Domestic Policy section is just about the only one I've worked on, so it's not a good example of the overall tone of the article. Almost every other section needs to be NPOV'd, by presenting both sides, as has been done in Domestic Policy. Again, if his domestic policies, and support for them, have not been adequately explained, I'm not the best person to fix that. Sandy 18:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Those are the examples? Then I wouldn't be too worried about this article becoming a campaign ad for Chavez anytime soon :-) -- WGee 19:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel more comfortable on the campaign ad scale, now that the lead is neutral. I was asked for detailed POV list several times (rather than the few examples I had given), when I had what I thought was other time-consuming work to do on the article. As you saw, when I put my mind to generating the entire list, it wasn't a small one :-) You don't really want more lists from me, do you? :-) In terms of the lists I've still got to finish (above), if we could stop going back and forth over minor wording in a few small sections, I might be able to pound out what's left on my list and be in position to remove tags. I've also been working on re-structuring the Criticism article, as mentioned above, so we'll have a place to move some of the content. But, I'm noticing that the problem there will be the same as here: that article is tagged as unbalanced, but I'm not seeing any content coming forward to balance the verifible, reliable criticism. Sandy 20:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

But the lead is not neutral either there are a lot of accusations that go unchallenged, if anything it might increase further, and the upper and middle classes should return as it is unrealistic and unverified without it. The point that I have been trying to reach at since the begining of this saga is that given that he is a public and controversial figure he WILL be critiscized and every single critiscism will have a counter, to ignore the latter would be POV. The critiscism article I am hoping to fix later.Flanker 20:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Compared to the smoother GWB lead

George Walker Bush (born July 6 1946) is the 43rd President of the United States of America, elected in 2000 and re-elected in 2004, and presently serving his second term in office. Bush formerly served as the 46th Governor of Texas from 1994 to 2001. A Republican, he belongs to one of the most politically influential American families, being the son of former president George H. W. Bush and elder brother of Jeb Bush, the present Governor of Florida.

An entrepreneur in the oil industry in Texas, Bush was an unsuccessful candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1978. After working on his father's 1988 presidential campaign, he purchased and managed the Texas Rangers baseball team, and in 1994 he was elected Governor of Texas. As Governor, Bush worked on education reform, school finance, tort reform and sponsored the largest tax cut program in Texas history. Re-elected in 1998, he was one of the most popular governors in the nation. Winning the nomination of the Republican Party, Bush won the 2000 presidential election in a close and controversial contest, despite losing the popular vote. As president, Bush has pushed through a $1.3 trillion tax cut program, the No Child Left Behind Act and efforts to reform Medicare and social security. Bush has also pushed for socially conservative efforts such as the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, faith-based welfare initiatives and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment to not recognize same-sex marriage.

Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Bush declared a global war on terrorism, and ordered the invasion of Afghanistan, overthrowing the Taliban and rooting out Al Qaeda. Following failed diplomatic efforts to disarm the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq and following the overthrow of the regime, committed the U.S. to establish democracy in both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as across the Middle East. Bush won re-election in 2004 after an intense and heated election campaign, becoming the first candidate to win a majority vote in 16 years, as well as the largest tally of votes for any presidential candidate. However, Bush has received heated criticism over his management of the war and domestic issues, and his popularity has declined over the continuation of the war in Iraq.

Summarized and non specific. That article is protected from changes BTWFlanker 20:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Marxism website as a source?

http://www.marxist.com/venezuela-hurricane-bush020905.htm

Should a website named "In Defense of Marxism" be used as a source for unbiased information? JNighthawk 09:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

We still have that source, and all told at least two dozen statements sourced from Znet, VenAnalysis, and now RedOrbit (don't know what it is, but assume title is descriptive), and that's without mentioning The Guardian. It has been mentioned for over a month now that it should not be hard to reference the article from sources such as CNN, BBC, AP, and others, but that hasn't happened, probably because many claims reported by the sources used in the article may not be reported in other media (e.g.; the Madsen claim -- most reputable sources check out who is making the claim before printing it). I again suggest that a faster route to NPOVing this article would be to chop a huge portion of it, and then see what's left that is verifiable and reliable. Sandy 12:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

But then you add the economist, april 11 and militares democraticos that is virulently against Chavez. There is no policy for removing biased sources, they are allowed what was claimed was for FA status which is a different animal. It is better to achieve neutrality than feature status as Sandy has stated more than once. However I do support removing biased sources with more neutral ones IF THEY CAN BE FOUND (I supported the change for the CAP assasination ref, since a more neutral source was found). I do not subscribe to the theory that ALL of them can be replaced. BTW the marxism site reprints what is found here [32]Flanker 17:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Handsoffvenezuela, more of the same. My concern is that work to replace those which can be replaced seems to have stopped, and new VenAnalysis sources continue to be added. Also, there is almost nothing referenced to The Economist that can't be found in numerous other publications, and I've also added the Washington Post (not known for being Republican or Bush-friendly), the Chicago Times, the BBC, Forbes, and many others. The sources supporting my edits are numerous and varied. Militares democraticos was a necessary addition to counter your claim that opposition came almost exclusively from the middle and upper classes, which is simply not true. Sandy 17:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The Washington Post is also virulently anti Chavez Diehl is notorious for his personal hatred (read his link), you claim the BBC is biased on the side of the government but there is no comparing the editorial with what the BBC produces. Militares are also upper classes they were officers not rank and file that still side with the government.Flanker 19:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Posada Carriles, Ortega, and Fernandez, terrorism, Criticism section

Critics have also charged that the Chávez government has engaged in extensive electoral fraud, especially during the 2000 and 2004 elections as well as the recent constitutional referendum, and has reported that two anti-Chávez activists were detained as political prisoners.(Amnesty International. (AI, 2003). "Venezuela: Human rights once more hang in the balance". Retrieved 10 Jun 2006.) Carlos Fernandez, the President of the business association, Fedecamaras, and a prominent leader of the general strike called by the opposition, is currently exiled in Miami(El Universal. (El Universal 17 Aug 2004)."Venezolanos en EEUU denuncian fraude electoral". Retrieved 26 Jun 2006(in Spanish)) Carlos Ortega, head of the union, CTV, fled to Costa Rica but returned in 2005 and was jailed. Officially charged with treason, evidence presented was an audiotape where he stated, "We are going to need about 10, 12 or 15 years of dictatorship to rescue the country, I have no problem with that." (Venezuela Analysis. (Venezuela Analysis 31 Oct 2003). "Opposition Leaders Prepare 'Civil Rebellion' With Media Support. Seek 15 Years of Post-Chavez Dictatorship." Retrieved 26 Jun 2006.)

...

The US Government claims Venezuelan cooperation in the international campaign against terrorism is negligible or purposely indifferent with neigboring FARC and ELN.(Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism. (US State Dept., April 28. 2006). Country Reports: Western Hemisphere Overview. Retrieved June 26, 2006.) However U.S. officials acknowledge that there is no evidence of Chavez engaging directly in terrorism.(Kraul, Chris. (LA Times, 25 Jun 2006). U.S. Eyes Venezuela-Iran Commercial Alliance. Retrieved 25 Jun 2006.) Venezuela requested extradiction of Cuban terrorist Luis Posada Carriles from the USA,(Wilson, Brian. (The Guardian 14 Jun 2005) The world is watching. Retrieved 26 Jun 2006.) which was denied. He is currently seeking citizenship in the USA.(Chardy, A., Corral, O. (Miami Herald 26 Jun 2006). "Posada's CIA ties uncovered in papers". Retrieved 26 Jun 2006.)

Flanker, I have extracted these two passages to here, and copy edited them and cleaned up the references, for later posting back to the article. I am trying to understand why you added this content, or what point is to be made.

First, is there no wikification of CTV? It is mentioned earlier in the article (I think under coup and worker strike) with no context whatsover. How should we describe CTV (largest worker union, what?).

Second, what do subsequent events involving Ortega and Fernandez have to do with the fact that they were detained as political prisoners? Why do we need to know that Fernandez is in Miami, for example? They were detained as political prisoners: what connection is being made to subsequent events? I can't tell what the point is about Fernandez being in Miami, and with respect to Ortega, it looks like you can't even comment in Venezuela that it may take a dictatorship to cure a dictatorship: was that his crime? And what did that have to do with why he was detained earlier?

I don't understand why you keep changing the terrorism claim, so I extracted it here so we could work on it.

And, how does the Posada Carriles case relate to the context of the sentences before it ? The reasoning for these edits just isn't at all clear. Sandy 21:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

How can you be a political prisoner if you live a life of luxury in Miami? The point I am trying to make is that the government does not want to carry the stigma of being labelled as holding political prisoners or journalists so much so that it has either pardoned a bunch or looked the other way when they leave (do you think escaping a country is easy?) So much so that it enrages supporters that people that are really dirty get off to live in Miami or Colombia. However to call them political prisoners is not accurate. Detention is very different from imprisonemnent Cindy Sheehan has been detained multiple times but has yet to be jailed. Posada is there because it has to add balance to a clearly duplicitus charge of ignoring the FARC and ELN when they five assylum to a major terrorist.Flanker 22:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Duplicitous....when.... Who is making tit-for-tat claims, again? 151.205.8.15 23:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia IS Duplicitus welcome to the game.Flanker 23:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to play a game, I'm trying to prod others to make encyclopedic content. I suppose you'd be having more fun though. 151.205.8.15 23:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Carriles has nothing to do with this article. SuperFlanker was previously complaining about "tit-for-tat" and is now openly engaging in it. I gave sourced criticism about Chavez and terrorism and he has seen fit to shrink it and expand the section on an irrelevant issue simply because it involves the US. This is poor behavior and poor material.

Also, FAIR is not a relevant source on terrorism. It is an organization (heavily left wing) that deals with its perception of bias in the media. Terrorism claims need specific attributes to experts and claimants on terrorist issues. The State Dept. is relevant for the US government, as it is the one who labels foreign organizations (such as the FARC and ELN) terrorist. 151.205.8.15 23:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Flanker, I'm trying to help you out here, but I'm not really seeing how your content additions illuminate any points or relate to the topic. Accusing the US of x has nothing to do with human rights orgs accusing Chavez of y, and regardless of what Ortega and Fernandez did *after* they were held as political prisoners, they were held as political prisoners for the apparent crime of exercising their constitutional rights. (do you think escaping a country is easy?) Yes, quite. Sandy 23:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

They are not political prisoners Fernandez is not in prison and Ortega is jailed for a real crime with real evidence this article is not about Wayne Madsen but I agreed with the fleshing out of the argument there. Posada Carriles must be included and obviously it is as good a place as ever. Fair was there to counter balance a MEDIA accusation itself being a media watchdog.Flanker 00:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Chavez, not Carriles, and the accusations deal with charges leveled by the US government, not simply any media. FAIR is unimportant and a bad source. 151.205.8.15 00:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There are two charges 1) by the media, FAIR's presence is needed to balance that. 2) By the US government for crimes of inaction. Carriles is perfectly in synch with the article. Given that Chavez has led rallies of thousands of people for the extradition.Flanker 00:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The only reason it is being brought into the section is to counter criticism of Chavez, but this is a misdirection. It is not an altogether notable subject in Chavez's career and the attempted insertion is only effected to accuse the US of hypocrisy in direct context to its own - very notable - claims about Chavez. This is not acceptable material for an encyclopedia. 151.205.8.15 00:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this straight a statment of not attacking the FARC in Venezuelan territory (which is WRONG BTW I will find a link) is notable with an admission that there is no evidence of involvement but Posada's extradition claim is not notable? Chavez considers breaking US ties. Yup it is sooo irrelevant :)Flanker 00:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That is a continued misrepresentation of the given sources. There is no "admission" of non-"involvement". The US has said that the issue of material support (i.e. direct aid) is not clear. You appear to long for changing this article into a drawn out war with an assertion on the merits of accusations whereas I am simply refining existing issues with given and relevant sourcing. It might be worthwhile to reexamine your relationship to this article and what your purpose in doing so is. 151.205.8.15 01:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read the article linked? copy paste "U.S. officials acknowledge that there is no evidence of Chavez engaging directly in terrorism. They dismissed as unfounded a rumor that Venezuela was or soon would be selling uranium to Iran. Venezuela is known to have uranium deposits in Amazon state but the mineral is not being mined, they said." This is what the department of state says:

"Venezuelan cooperation in the international campaign against terrorism remained negligible ... Chavez' ideological sympathy for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN) limited Venezuelan cooperation with Colombia in combating terrorism. FARC and ELN units often crossed into Venezuelan territory for rest and re-supply, with little concern that they would be pursued by Venezuelan forces." The only thing they can prove is that the government is not doing as much as they want, That is it in a nutshell. My purpose in this article is to provide accuracy and balance. And it is lacking with dangling accusations. What would be your purpose?Flanker 01:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem I see is that the content you added doesn't answer the "dangling accusations": it changes the subject. Can you try to address criticism directly, without getting into unrelated topics? Sandy 12:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Then where do we put it? should we create a sub topic regarding terrorism? or is that too US centric? Frankly it is not changing the topic entirely because the Chavez governemnt counters every single terrorist accusation with Posada and two other venezuelan officers that bombed the Colombian and Spanish embasies to make it look like the government did it (I will find a link).Flanker 16:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The article size is now 113 KB

Obviously it ballooned up to the largest size in wikipedia for a politician by far, now the question is if there should be a process of shedding weight? since there were issues of POV the shedding should be done in pairs I believe. It is a question of prose (original Dec 10 article) vs Neutrality: claim and counter claim (our additions). If it is going to be the above which is encyclopedic there will be considerable original research where we piece in what is happenening and add what might be relevant, the latter would be just handing out links and letting the reader decide.Flanker 01:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't anticipate a problem paring it down. There are huge chunks of text that can go to daughter articles, particularly in foreign policy and in the earlier, very long sections, like the 2002 "coup" and the 2004 recall.

I also hope that we can avoid the (what has now become absurd) need to reference almost every single sentence, and summarize more tightly concepts which should be established by now. Another example is how content grew in ways simply not necessary (e.g.; the addition of the Cuba info to the Index of Economic Freedom). There is plenty we can pare down.

I would also be happier if we could summarize the lead more tightly, but the same thing occurred there: every word added required a reference. For example, it should be sufficient to say that Chavez is widely and severely criticized from many sectors, both domestic and international, and let the body of the text explain it. But I respect WGee's concern that, if we don't reference it, future editors may change it, and FA review these days is asking for references in the lead.

Since we didn't pare down the length before starting to work on the article (which I would have preferred), I suggest that we should now pare down the length after we've finished adding content (so that we don't get crossed up in which job we're doing and which article we're working on). I'm trying to restructure the Criticism article, so that we can use it, so we don't want to be working on both articles at the same time. I'd also not like to take on the job of reducing the size until WGee let's us know he's finished with his exams. My vote for now is that we finish the job at hand, then reduce the article size later. Sandy 12:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

llanio 06:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)The next Presidential elections will be December 2006, and the chances that he will not be President again are minimal. What do you think it would be the future of Venezuela, now that Chávez has absolute control of the Government and the Venezuelan institutions including the voting system elections? Do any of you think that Venezuela will follow the same path than Cuba?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Venezuela"