Talk:Chavista

This page should be redirected to Hugo Chávez, in the manner of Fidelista and Reaganite which are redirected to their respective pages.--Zleitzen 18:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, I agree, but since we are combatting the excessively bloated article size of Hugo Chávez, I think we need to keep out all of the extra content we can. I'd prefer to keep this article. Sandy 20:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is Thatcherism, so there may be some need. Though at present the information lacks clarity.--Zleitzen 21:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's for sure, but I can't help on that score :-) Sandy 21:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are not reliable sources

Those of you insisting that blogs can be using for supporting colloquialism, could you show me where is that guideline? This is not what WP:RS says. Also, is this "colloquialism" used in all spanish speaking world or only in Peru. Colloquiallisms are often very local. The addition of this paragraph can be easily read as a message of hate and discrimination against some people because of their personal beliefs and therefore very anti-WP . JRSP 04:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know about Peru, but I and my friends use that colloqialism in Venezuela. That blog just reinforces what I know. In addition, there are not guidelines for everything. Like, find me a guideline that says that blogs cannot be used as an "example of something". It is so generally seen as an insult, that there are even jokes about Zidane hitting Materazzi (you know what I am talking about ... right?) because he said his mama was chavista.[[1]], [[2]], [[3]]. Need more? Anagnorisis 06:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to start with it is very strange that being myself a Venezuelan, I'm learning colloquialisms in the WP and not in the street. One of the blogs points to a big headline saying "Chávez, dictatorship on sight". I think this use of "chavista" is a message of hate and discrimination. I could point you to a lot similar jokes about African descendants or Jews. Now, if you think this is funny, perhaps you should move the article to this site [4] JRSP 11:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what the WP:RS guidelines say (emphasis mine): "Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are typically not acceptable as sources."

Now, since most people who know Venezuela know that chavista is commonly used pejoratively, I don't understand your objection to that straightforward statement. Further, since it is a colloquial term, we would not expect to find it used in formal media sources such as the New York Times or the BBC. They don't write colloquially. That is why I call your attention to the word typically in the reliable source guidelines. This article is not documenting a BLP or a historic fact; it is documenting a common colloquial term. The use of everyday sources, rather than formal media sources, to give examples is appropriate. You can't cleanse Wikipedia of every fact you disagree with; Wikipedia reports the world as it is, not as you want it to be. If you still disagree, perhaps we should add the very long list of examples to the main article? If you are in Venezuela and claim not to have heard chavista used pejoratively, you should get out more often. Sandy 12:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"commonly used pejoratively", "common colloquial term" sounds as trying to represent a minority view as if they were the majority. I don't kwow Sandy if the Venezuelan people you know are a representative sample of Venezuelan population. Now, just an example, let us say someone edits the muslim page and puts that "this word is "commonly used pejoratively" to mean terrorist and gives as support some muslim hate blogs and a couple of bad jokes. How do you think they would react? JRSP 12:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support replacing the word "commonly" with another choice, since it is a vaque quantification. You've indicated that you don't know a representative sample of Venezuelans, as you claim never to have heard the term used pejoratively. On the other hand, I am surrounded by pro- and anti-Chavez supporters alike, even among my own family. Are you suggesting that the sites that are provided in support of the colloquial use of the term are "hate blogs"? Sandy 12:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "Chavez, Dictadura a la vista" doesn't sound very friendly JRSP 12:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the change to "sometimes" instead of "commonly". Afterall, it is rare to found studies measuring how often a colloquial term is used. Any opinion as to "commonly" or even "rarely" would be subjective. For example, how often are the colloquial terms camel toe or muffin tops used? Or more to the point, how often are twinkie, raghead, oreo, coconut, wetback, redneck, chink, towel head, and so many more used pejoratively? Anagnorisis 18:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those terms, though pejorative, can be supported by reliable sources. Of course, a serious newspaper or magazine would not use those terms but can report that those terms are being used. If "chavista" is a word used pejoratively by a majority or a significant minority it should be easy to source properly. But if it is a "me and my friends" use that can only be supported by blogs then it should not be in the wikipedia.JRSP 18:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can go to WP:RS and argue that the guideline should be changed to a policy saying, "no blogs may ever be used on Wikipedia at any time under any circumstances". Sandy 18:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS gives some clues on when blogs can be used. However, I don't think they can be used for supporting a NN use of a word JRSP 19:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You also can't use the policy of WP:BLP to cleanse Wikipedia of all criticism of Hugo Chávez, but you did that, so I'm not sure how clear your read of policy and guidelines is. Sandy 19:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turning to policy vs. guidelines, WP:V says, "For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." I'll let you do the homework as to whether a blog can be used to support a colloquialism, per interpretation of "largely". Sandy 19:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V policy

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

quoted by JRSP 21:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here, very easy, why don't you just google "CHAVISTA" by itself alone. Read the use it is mostly given in the first few pages and draw your own conclusions about the intentions people have when using the word. Anagnorisis

see WP:V#Sources of dubious reliability. BTW google is not a reliable source (but it can help finding them) JRSP 01:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, google these two words together (CHAVISTA + PEJORATIVE) and lets see what you get [[5]]. You will even get an article at VHeadline.com which is the free website version of an expensive weekly business, politics, and economics, subscription-only news service. It actually says in the article: They describe the President as a “communist” and a “dictator” and his supporters as “hooligans”, “chavistas hordes” (“hordas Chavistas”), “delinquents” (“delicuentes”), “scruffy” (“zarapastrosos”, “chusma”) and “killers” (“asesinos”). Some of them live in permanent fear that the “Chavistas” will one day come to kill them and to take their property away from them." Do you think that they think of "chavista" as a term of endearment? Uh? I do not think so, specially taking into account the other words that are there. Anagnorisis 02:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And here is part of the text written by a group of people (Ernesto Marín, Carolina González y O. Alberto Morales) researching racism in Venezuela. I quote:

"El presente trabajo es un avance de una investigación sobre el racismo en el discurso de universitarios venezolanos. Su propósito es describir las expresiones discriminatorias y racistas que se utilizan en contextos académicos de la Universidad de Los Andes, Mérida, Venezuela, como recursos para expresar proxemia, pertenencia de grupo, afectividad y afinidad. Se espera probar la siguiente Hipótesis: El uso de marcadores nominales que denotan racismo y discriminación para expresar afectividad, pertinencia de grupo, afinidad y proxemia es una práctica común entre los universitarios de la Universidad de Los Andes, Mérida, Venezuela. Éste es un estudio etnográfico, descriptivo explicativo, que se está realizando en la Universidad de Los Andes desde enero del 2003. El corpus se tomó de conversaciones espontáneas entre profesores, entre estudiantes, o entre estos dos grupos, llevadas a acabo en situaciones reales en dos facultades de la Universidad de Los Andes: la Facultad de Humanidades y Educación y la Facultad de Odontología. Para la selección se consideró 1) que la conversación se haya llevado a cabo en los predios universitarios de alguna de las dos facultades, 2) que las expresiones, palabras o frases sean de uso común o que sean recurrentes en el habla de los informantes y, 3) que la conversación se realice en situaciones reales, naturales para los informantes. Se encontró el uso de los siguientes marcadores nominales en el discurso cotidiano: loca (loco), maricón, negro (negrito, negra, negrita), bobo, tonto, rata, coño `e madre, mono, macaco, viejo (viejito, viejita), chavista, adeco, escualido, bolsa, vago, campesino. Éstos, sin embargo, se utilizan en este contexto, para expresar afectividad, pertinencia de grupo, afinidad y proxemia. Se concluye que el discurso, condicionado por el contexto sociocultural, determina las relaciones sociales; por lo tanto, su comprensión está subordinada al conocimiento del contexto. Lo que en otros contextos es racista y discriminatorio, en este ámbito representa afinidad, proxemia, pertinencia de grupo y afectividad."

Though seen from a different context, the article quoted above uses what could be considered pejorative words to say that depending on the context and who says it to who it could be in instances used in a friendly manner; just like when to black friends in the USA would call each other "hey nigga" -not the same as it was said by an stranger in the street. Anyway, the point is that they refer to words that in other instances would be derogatory. By the way, chavistas (not said here in a pejorative manner) often use the word "adeco" pejoratively. Chavistas thinking so badly of adecos, for one of them to call someone an adeco is derogatory; by the same token for an hard-core antic-chavista to call someone a chavista is an insult. It just depends on who is calling who what. So yes, sometimes chavista is ised in a pejorative way by opponents of chavismo. Is it so difficult to understand that? (by the way the except above is available at a page of Valencia's University in Spain [[6]]) Anagnorisis

"The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it" JRSP 02:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Academic blogs are not reliable either JRSP 02:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The obligation is on the person who places a POV tag on an article to explain the POV or remove the tag, in case you've forgotten to do that. Sandy 03:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as I am concerned, the sources provided are reliable (there are many, so you will have to try discredit all - not just try to discredit one and hope it covers them all). All I need is one source. I have more than one that is reliable (an academic research paper, and a paid subscription news service -not counting all the websites you don't like because theyare too pedestrian and colloquial). Thus, the statement stays. As far as I am concerned, I am convinced of what I am saying as supported by evidence. You have failed to convince me that the evidence shown doesn't support what I am saying or that the evidence is not reliable. There. I have spoken. ;-) Now your turn to say it is not reliable and for us to keep going in circles. This is not a forum. Purpose here is not to convince YOU. If you disagree, then escalate and go to a higher instance. Anagnorisis 03:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice that the sources provided are not only unreliable but also don't mention the use of chavista with the specific meanings stated in the paragraph JRSP 16:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not notice because I disagree. IMO they support the meaning stated. Besides, many other sources have been provided which support that view. You are obviously shoosing to ignore them. Anagnorisis 21:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not read "behaving against society, discriminating or deteriorating public spaces" in any of the sources you provided. JRSP 00:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]