Jump to content

Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Untitled

This archive page covers approximately the dates between June 15, 2006 and June 22, 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.

TO DO LIST

Since there is (weak) consensus above to work on Dec 10 version, I am starting a To Do list of work necessary to bring it up to date.

Structural restoration changes (things like restoring Wiki links, categories, etc.) should be made to the main page version, while content revisions should be proposed in the Sandbox version, for later merging to the main article. Edits made to the main page version without consensus may be moved to the Sandbox version, pending review.

For reference:

Please add to list, and strike items as they are completed. Also, please indicate if you are working on a particular item, to avoid duplication of effort. If discussion of an item on the list is needed, please use topics already started, or start a new topic, so the list will stay just a list. Sandy 12:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

LIST

  • Is there a template for indicating that the article is not current? I added the {{update}} template. --Enano275 23:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Thanks! I moved it from the top to the sections that are outdated: the top is pretty much history. Sandy 02:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I (SG) will review Flanker's reverted edits: No response, assumed done. Sandy 01:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Argentina to Guyana updated main page and sandbox versions
    • Deleted ref Need to find another reference, can't just delete a ref.
    • Personal life changed ref and another updated on main page and sandbox: added Christianity Today reference. Did not delete VenAnalysis, as having both gives more balance.
    • update CNE wiki and BSCH - Santander updated on main page and sandbox
    • changed green left to BBC updated in main page and sandbox
    • Changed Znet to BBC Bolivarian circles: I added BBC reference, but did not delete Zmag, as it supports the exact statements being made. This section appears to have been written from Zmag POV, and should be reviewed for POV relative to BBC report.
    • deleted and changed refs Not done. Cannot just delete references. Need to be updated or kept.
    • added ref Chavez and Media, cjr.org ref added to main page and sandbox
    • more Changed main page and sandbox version, VenAnalysis to BBC for launch of Telesur. Could not decipher change to Bolivarian missions, so included it below for discussion.
    • fixed link? Deleted this entire passage. It was not in Dec 10 version, and is new content. Started section below for reviewing content on Communal Council Law before adding.
    • Bolivarian missions and another Couldn't decipher, but think I got Flanker's final version (see below)
    • Criticism, copy edit Not done, subject to discussion. Suggest changes in Sandbox ?
    • deleted links Can't just delete links. 53rd Pres already replaced per internet archive (see discussion above). Can't find update for La Semana, suggest we leave old ref even though internet access is dead, as it still shows that statement was referenced.

More To Do

  • What's up with two different referencing styles? Fix ? Done, SG. [1]
  • The Presidential info box at the top of the article still isn't working right.
  • Deal with voter tally boxes
    • I seem to recall some revisions to these numbers: check June 10 version. Reviewed all voter boxes, numbers same, SG
    • Remove absurd level of precision from decimal place percentages in voter tables (after numbers are verified and referenced) Removed decimal point precision in all voter tally boxes. You can check my work Template:ChavezElections2004, Template:ChavezElections2000, Template:ChavezElections1999, Template:ChavezElections1998 SG
      • At the same time, remove silly 71.xx numbers from article: just say 72% for readability (after numbers are verified and referenced) SG.
    • By the way, where is the reference for the vote tallies? Shouldn't there be a footnote reference as part of the box ? I can't find any indication of a reference for these numbers, and I've seen other numbers elsewhere. (Found and added reference to 2000 box. Added request for help on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela.) SG
  • Resolve 53rd President (see above); search talk page history Done, found reference, SG.
  • Merge Dec 10 and June 10 versions. This includes (at minimum):
    • Double check that article structural updates are complete and all items are restored (things like interwikis, categories, IPA, etc.) I believe we're now up to date. We are short one Presidential succession template, but why do we need three different ways of listing Presidents of Venezuela? We have Presidential template at bottom of article. SG
    • Review all internal and external links (checked and updated all Wikilinks: SG)
    • Check for best use of pictures, including Fair Use and copyright issues
    • Update foreign policy
      • Review unreferenced statement, introduced by anon editor, and lost on revert (under foreign policy, Peru presidential affair): Garcia responded by saying that Chavez was "a midget dictator with a big wallet." Update: Here is a source, should we decide to use it. Forbes SG
    • Update domestic, economy and statistics
      • Still need to address internal and external debt, inflation, devaluation, deterioration in health care, and failure to build enough housing, considering massive oil windfall
    • Any oil price related or OPEC issues which are outdated?
      • OPEC price hawking, Citgo issues, destruction of PDVSA, guerilla as head of PDVSA
    • Review omissions which create POV
    • Review vis-a-vis Saravask's last version
  • Resolve ICC (see above) Resolved, see talk. SG
  • Resolve Mudslides (see above) Done, see talk. SG
  • Resolve removal of Honors and Awards, which is now linked in Presidency article (see above) per talk page section above, done, SG
  • Figure out this statement, which never should have made it past FA review (there are no links, no definitions, and no context for this statement -- it is the first and only mention of AD and COPEI in the article). "In the process, the changes in Venezuela's political structure dramatically weakened Chávez's AD and COPEI opposition." Update: Just realized this was not in FA, and was an edit by 172 after revert. Re-inserted original wording. SG
  • Fix awkward wording: "Chávez had another daughter, Rosa Inés, through that marriage, in addition to a son-in-law, Raúl "Raúlito" Alfonzo." It sounds like Chávez or his wife gave birth to a son-in-law. SG
  • What does this add? "This view is closely aligned with the school of Liberation Theology." SG
  • Is Súmate mentioned anywhere in the article? (I still have to read a long PDF, to address Flanker's POV concern - will do that soon.) Added link, SG
  • Since The Carmona Decree is linked, address POV in that article.
  • Review "Official links", since use of "official" may introduce POV.
  • Check *all* references for dead links, and continue with work of replacing "biased" sources with reliable, primary sources. This doesn't imply deleting of references.
  • POV on speeches:
    • Do we need *seven* speeches by Chávez, balanced by *zero*?
    • Review newer list of speeches on June 10 version, and decide which to keep.
  • Per Max, improve picture in lead. (172 indicated he is working on that.)
  • Freedom of speech issues not mentioned in article
  • Review early life, which appears to have some errors

Later To Do

  • Later (after we get article restored)?
    • Review all other POV issues (after we get the primary restore work done).
      • Dodd
      • Peru
      • Súmate
      • Review Enano's concerns (above): Nothing about Lula da Silva, nothing about Evo Morales, nothing about his relationship with Iran nor Lybia, nothing about the 2005 parliamentary elections, nothing about the weapon selling prohibition, nothing about the currency control, the 2002-03 general strike information very incomplete.
      • "I won't go even if 90% are against me" Added, SG
      • Is Chávez "gerrymandering" to stay in power beyond previous 5-year term (now possibly 16 years) covered sufficiently anywhere.
        • (Adding a note here for clarification: I used "gerrymandering" in quotes, as that is not the precise term for all the changes to the electoral process that were alleged: I don't know what the correct word would be, since the changes to the electoral provess were so massive, but I'm sorry the term "gerrymandering" resulted in confusion later on. I also did the math wrong: I think the 16 should be 14? 1999 - 2012 inclusive?) Sandy 14:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Caracas1830, please list your concerns
    • Shorten (subject to consensus)
      • As part of this job, check all daughter articles, and see if summaries per Summary Style can be shortened.
    • Have we sufficiently addressed or summarized the changes introduced by the The Constitutional Assembly anywhere? (See Ozzyprv concern copied from archived talk page, listed below).
  • Wikify all new text: lots of missing wiki links.
  • Can someone wikify Orlando Urdaneta?

Communal Council Law

Last sentence under Economic Policy, not sure where content came from, but reference wasn't working right ... Proposed content (Flanker?) to be added, pending review and consensus:

On March 2006 the Communal Council Law was approved, whereby communities that decide to organize themselves into a council can be given official state recognition and access to federal funds and loans for community projects. This skips the local and state governments that are perceived as corrupt. [1] Critics state that the councils are another avenue for corruption.

Also, does last sentence need ref?

The link is on there http://conexionsocial.org.ve/wk/Law_Of_Communal_Councils._Final_Draft I don´t see why it is not working as for the last reference I really do not have one.Flanker 17:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Flanker, I'm sorry to be behind here, but how is this relevant to the most important info about Chávez (the article is already too long), how is it relevant to Economic Policy, and who/what is ConexionSocial (in terms of reliable source)? The relevance of this addition isn't clear to me, so it may be less clear to people even less familiar with Venezuela than myself. We need to reference claim of another avenue for corruption. When I google Communal Council Law Venezuela, all I get are leftist sources. Google News returns nothing at all. Sandy 17:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The comunal councils are IMHO as important as the Missions, just that they are brand new, all of the critiscism has been in spanish and from other people I have met not from a linkable source. I put them under the missions (and not economy) however I propose that we modify the titles, in Venezuela there are two ministries: One for the tradiditonal economy and one for the "popular" economy although both the comunal councils and misiones bypass this ministries the titles could be changed into popular economy and traditional economy. conexion social is translating the law and therefore more direct without bias, removing them means adding venanalysis.Flanker 18:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand they are important "in your humble opinion:" I'm hoping you can explain why, as I'm not seeing it, and all the news references are from biased sources. They don't seem to have caught the eye of mainstream media. Since the article is already too long, I'm trying to understand the relevance (other than the obvious, another means for corruption, as mentioned). Sandy 19:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Considering we are trying to fight off mainstream bias I believe your comment is off, my opinion is that it is important and so is to a lot of Venezuelans that cannot contribute to wikipedia, http://consejoscomunales.org/index.php this issue is not that controversial aside from the relatively weak critiques of "more corruption" etc.Flanker 20:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Flanker, can you please explain it's importance? That is, how you see this one particular law (among so many) as being a pivotal part of understanding Chavez? I'm just not seeing it. If it's not clear to me, it's not going to be clear to readers unfamiliar with Venezuela, or who can't read Spanish. Sometimes you have to spell it out for us dummies:-) Thanks, Sandy 21:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The law is important because it is recentl being pushed strongly and openly by the executive, from having several 'Alo' dedicated entirely to it, a cadenas recently for the comunal banks etc.[2][3][4]If anything it is undereferenced because this will have an equal impact on the population in supporting the government as the missions, if this is too unorthodox we could return to good old venanalysis to spell it out for us ;)Flanker 22:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't really know what to do next, Flanker: I wish you could tell me why the law is important (other than Chavez talking about it for hours :-) Perhaps if you post the VenAnalysis info here, it will explain? Just not wanting to add more hodgepodge pieces of info to the article without understanding how they fit into the big picture. Is it because of the corruption factor, does it have to do with Chavez consolidating more power, what is the goal? (I don't expect VenAnalysis to tell me :-)) Another question: why was the Communal Council Law inserted under Bolivarian Missions? What is the connection?Sandy 01:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I had assumed you read Venanalysis take (you should always look at the other side I read El universal every day, and even Vcrisis on many occasions) [5] [6] [7] I can tell you that right now it is the most important social project the government and the supporters are currently working on.Flanker 01:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
ah, now I recall those articles. I see a problem with there being nothing anywhere to counterbalance the bias in the VenAnalysis articles, so there's nothing I can add. (I would read ElUniversal, but since freedom of speech is legally limited regardless of your interpretation, I don't expect to find a frank analysis there.) I can find no mention in any news source, so I suggest we leave stand what you've added to the article, for now. But for the unitiated, you might want to explain what the CCL has to do with Bolivarian Missions. As the article reads right now, the Bolivarian Missions section makes no sense. It mixes economy with the Missions and now with a law whose connection to the Missions is not established in the text. Sandy 02:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Speech is legally limited in the United States as well: libel, slander, state secrets, perjury, revealing sources, FCC control of the airwaves, calling for the assasination of the pres, Patriot act etc. I don't see how the NYT is now unable or unwilling to critiscize the gov, there is a difference between non-absolute freedom of speech that no gov allows and no freedom of speech, besides all you have to do is read the editorials and you will see. As for the title conection it is weird I know, I propose changing the titles the gov has two ministries one related to the old economy and a new ministry for the 'popular' economy, even though msiions and CC bypass the ministries I propose a similar change in titles.Flanker 02:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Bolivarian Missions

First paragraph of Bolivarian missions

ORIGINAL (based on biased sources, btw)

Chávez's domestic policy relies heavily on the "Bolivarian Missions," a series of political campaigns aimed at radically altering Venezuela's economic and cultural landscape of Venezuela. Although recent economic activity under Chávez has been robust, per-capita GDP in 2004 has dropped around 1% from 1999 levels. However, as of September 2005, there have also been significant drops since 1999 in unemployment and in the government's definition of "poverty," and there have been marked improvements in national health indicators between 1998 and 2005.

PROPOSED by Flanker (on reverted version, still using Weisbrot and VenAnalysis sources - also based on INE numbers, which is a Chávez defintion for poverty, not international standard)

Chávez's domestic policy relies heavily on the "Bolivarian Missions," a series of political campaigns aimed at radically altering Venezuela's economic and cultural landscape of Venezuela. Recent economic activity under Chávez has been robust,[2][3][4] As of May 2006, there has been a 6.4% drop in official unemployment[5][6] and a 6% drop in the government's definition of "poverty,"[7][8] and there have been marked improvements in national health indicators between 1998 and 2005.[9][10]

Suggestions

altering Venezuela's economic and cultural landscape of Venezuela. How did that make it through the FA review ????

Fixed grammar. Sandy 14:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

been significant drops ... in the government's definition of "poverty," Honestly, I thought my English was tortured, but it appears this "FA" had no editorial review. The government's definition dropped? This is the prose we're trying to save?

Fixed grammar. Sandy 14:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see the references improving, but I don't think you can delete the comment about GDP drop. Venezuela's economy must be viewed in the context of oil prices. Discussion of the declining economy before rising oil prices under Chávez should remain. I suggest:

Chávez's domestic policy relies heavily on the "Bolivarian Missions," a series of political campaigns aimed at altering Venezuela's economic and cultural landscape. Although per-capita GDP in 2004 dropped around 1% from 1999 levels, recent economic activity has been robust, with rising oil prices. As of September 2005, there have been significant drops since 1999 in unemployment and in "poverty" by the government's definition. There have also been marked improvements in national health indicators between 1998 and 2005. Sandy 02:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Strike that. Now that I've researched how Chávez reports the numbers, versus international standards, I don't know how such inaccurate and POV statements made it into the FA article, except that clearly, there is not an economic data review as part of the FA review and maybe there aren't any economic data standards on Wiki ?? We need to put some real and accurate numbers in the article, with accurate sources (which will likely show, as anyone familiar with Venezuela knows, that the poor under Chávez have gotten dramatically more poor). Defining "poverty" by Chavez definitions, different than international standards, isn't going to fly in an encyclopedia unless it is fully explained. Sandy 01:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Look if you want to debate if poverty has dropped it is your prerogative, but we cannot debate here, however it is what the government reports all governments have their own standards, Venezuela's current poverty standard is the CPI (around $250)of the Andean Pact so it is directly comparable to the other regional nations. As for an internationally comparable standard I also gave the one about the World Bank that says poverty dropped 10% in 10 years (would you prefer we reference what the World Bank says over the lower drop from gov figures?). The 1% drop in GDP per capita is outdated, since it was recorded 6 months have passed with strong GDP growth. We cannot remove the postive such as recent strong economic growth (averaging 13% in 3 years) and reported poverty drop and unemployment.Flanker 17:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
No debate: we don't decide the numbers. We'll need to present data that contradicts and/or explains Chavez's data, for balance. We can't just tell one side of the story, when Chavez redefines the numbers (apples and oranges). Sandy 22:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
There was no redifining the numbers, what you alude to was an Andres Oppenheimer editorial were he claims the governemnt made a change but it was rebutted by another editorial from the same guy claiming that the government told him the same yardsticks were being used. There are no other internal numbers, there are international numbers of which I gave you one (world bank), IMF and UN agencies (UNICEF, World health org, etc), etc. They all corroborate government data, and in the case of the UN audit it. heck there are some statistics whose omission makes the article biased against chavez (check the last entry on POV against)Flanker 15:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea of balancing the numbers. On one side we could present the official data, and to contradict (or support in some cases) the official data we could use numbers from organizations such as Datanalisis. This would really help POV. --Enano275 23:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

POV list

WOW. I just reread through the entire article, to see where we are. The POV is so extensive that I'm wondering what we're trying to save, considering I also found some tortured prose. SO much work had gone into NPOVing the other version. Much of this list had been fixed in the pre-revert version. It had the facts and the data: the prose could have been corrected with a thorough copy edit, and we were almost there.

  • Too many sections are written from point of view of socialist references provided, with no balance from other references.
  • After Chávez resumed his presidency in April 2002, he ordered several investigations to be carried out, and their official results supported Chávez's assertions that the 2002 coup was sponsored by the United States. No counter claim or reference whatsoever. Dodd left out completely. Thoroughly POV and one-sided. An entire paragraph dedicated to Chavez claims, without a single word of rebuttal. Carter referenced, but no referenced claim of rebuttal. How does such POV become FA? Done.
  • Súmate left out completely, and all that Chavez did to avoid the first two recalls.
  • Peru, mangled foreign policy, and other gaffes left out, had been added in pre-revert version.
  • "Gerrymandering" to increase 5-year single term to possible 14 (or more) years now, and stacking of Supreme Court, left out
  • No discussion of damage to economy, currency control, masked by rising oil prices - this is glossed over. Using the Chavez definition of poverty, to show that poverty has declined, is POV. Report *real* numbers from real soures, on internationally-accepted standards, not POV reports of numbers from biased sources.
  • Is there any discussion of the AD/COPEI corruption, which birthed Chávez?
  • "Official" links
  • Seven Chávez speeches, no balance
  • Many bases for dictatorial claims completely left out, including "I won't go even if 90% vote against me", yet strangely irrelevant quotes included.
  • A career military officer, Chávez founded the leftist Fifth Republic Movement after a failed 1992 coup d'état. Passive voice yields POV: Fails to mention that he led this coup.
  • Domestically, Chávez has launched massive Bolivarian Missions to combat disease, illiteracy, malnutrition, poverty, and other social ills. Massive? Better "whose goal was to combat ...? June 10 version had corrected things like this.
  • Chávez has been severely criticized, especially by elements of Venezuela's upper middle and upper classes. Utterly POV: "especially" by a lot of the world, and more than Venezuelan middle and upper classes.
  • Worse, Chávez's allies were unable to broadcast their prerecorded tapes on the national airwaves Worse? Utterly POV.
  • As the coup unfolded, Pérez eluded capture, Eluded capture? You'd think he was a fugitive, rather than President. Who was the criminal?
  • It gets better if you finish the sentence: As the coup unfolded, Pérez eluded capture, and fourteen soldiers were killed ... in the ensuing violence So, now the deaths are attributed to the President eluding capture, not the violent coupster.
  • After a two-year imprisonment, Chávez was pardoned by President Rafael Caldera in 1994. Because? By saying nothing, in context of previous paragraphs, it sounds like the issue was with Perez, not Chavez, and he never should have been imprisoned.
  • No mention at all of calls for vote abstention, in protest votes. No context for why abstention numbers are important.
  • No mention of the "not a coup" side of the story, which had been addressed in the pre-revert version.
  • Chávez's reforms have drawn both critical acclaim and bitter condemnation. He has alienated many Venezuelans, especially in the upper middle and upper classes, who have reported widespread political repression and human rights violations under his rule. Implication is that only middle and upper classes are reporting the human rights violations. Someone has to report them, no?
  • However, Chávez faced a profound dilemma in that, while he wished to promote the redistribution of wealth, increased regulation, and social spending, he did not wish to discourage foreign direct investment (FDI). In keeping with his predecessors, Chávez attempted to shore up FDI influxes to prevent an economic crisis of chronic capital flight and inflation. Reference. "Profound" dilemma elicits sympathy, rather than exploring how his policies affected economy. No significant mention of the damage done to oil industry, masked by rising oil prices. The entire section on the new constitution fails to explain how Chavez pulled it off, via extra-legal or extra-democratic means. Need to explain in plain language what was done.
  • During this same election, Chávez himself stood for reelection. It hasn't been made clear to the unitiated that Chavez changed what was a single five-year Presidential term to two terms, in addition to wrangling another interim election, resulting in a possible 1614-year term.
  • No mention of violent take over of Coca-Cola plants to "feed the masses".
  • On April 9, 2002, CTV leader Carlos Ortega called for a two-day general strike. There's an abrupt introduction: no mention at all of all that led up to it, or how Chavez was dismantling a state-run oil industry that was well-respected in the industry overall.
  • Approximately 500,000 people took to the streets on April 11, 2002 They took to the streets for many days.
  • Nevertheless, there were also significant setbacks. Nevertheless? Setbacks? POV.
  • No mention of problem with new "universities"
  • In early and mid-2003, the Venezuelan opposition began the process of collecting the millions of signatures needed to activate the presidential recall provision provided for in the 1999 Constitution. No mention of grassroots, civilian, vounteer organization, Súmate -- just "the opposition". No mention of raids and need to secure the signatures, or "gerrymandering" of the 20% number needed to effect a recall. Wasn't there a prior requirement of 15%, that he also got changed to 20 ??? Anyone ??
  • The election was overseen by the Carter Center and certified by them as fair and open.[32] However, the opposition called the results fraudulent, citing documents which indicated that the true results were the complete opposite of the reported ones. Validation of results contains a citation, where fraud claims are unreferenced. POV by failure to reference and document the claims of fraud, including specific allegations, reports, and media accounts. Doesn't allow the reader to see what the other side really says, but gives them plenty of leftist magazine articles.
  • Bolivarian missions: two paragraphs about all that he has supposedly done, not a single counter claim presented.
  • Venezuela is a major producer of oil products, which remain the keystone of the Venezuelan economy. Biased by leaving out mention that he increased dependency on oil export revenues.
  • Media, it sounds like the so-called "opposition" controls the air waves. No mention of the government-owned channels, or the data showing that Chavez commandeered more cadenas than any president before him. POV, by completely glossing over the issue of his control of the media. Leaves out extent of government-owned media, reach, and influence, especially considering Chavez cadenas and hours-long diatribes on radio.
  • although drawing heavily from Simón Bolívar's ideals, according to whom? He calls it that, but no case is made for there being any connection between Chavez and Bolivar's ideology or philosophy. Good marketing. Need to clarify his claim vs. reality.
  • Frequently, pro-Chavez claims in the article are referenced, while "critics claim" is left vague and unreferenced, which doesn't allow the reader to see/explore the extent of criticism or read and access the valid criticism. Here's another one: Chávez's opponents, however, are skeptical of the purported autonomy of the "Bolivarian Circles" from the government. The reference list is biased to the left. When "critics claim", there is no reference or supporting detail provided. Over-referenced article from leftist POV, under-referenced from the right. This had been corrected in June 10 version.
  • No discussion of significant escalation of crime under Chávez, or how he has furthered social insecurity, class division and racial hatred. (ref name=PostCrime Reel, M. "Crime Brings Venezuelans Into Streets", Washington Post, (May 10, 2006), p. A17, Accessed 24 June 2006.)
  • Little discussion of deterioration of independence of the judiciary or separation of powers, very serious issues threatening Venezuela's democracy.
  • Pictures unbalanced: earlier version had a mix of favorable and unfavorable portrayals and captions. When text update is completed, add pictures which are reflective of text.
  • Rampant, increasing corruption not dealt with at all.
  • Weapons buildup, drug trafficing center omitted
  • No mention of Plaza Altamira military protest against Chavez, or the deaths there.

Not sure this article is salvageable. To DO list is massive, other version needed a serious copy edit. We're wasting a lot of time fixing links and structure to correct the revert, when the article is thoroughly POV, while the pre-revert version had gotten to the point of presenting all sides, and was still shorter. Might have been better to edit the pre-revert version, than to have to deconstruct POV. MAJOR merge of June 10 updates needed here. Did anyone mention a "coup". Sandy 04:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The list really isn't massive at all. Almost every point requires the addition/modification of only several sentences really. I could address all of them in a single edit, I expect, if I just spend a couple of hours on LexisNexis searching for relevant news articles. I should be able to do this today, but not at the moment, as I have to log off my computer. 172 | Talk 12:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
That would be very helpful. What would also help maintain good will would be a concurrent effort to review the contributions that had already been made in these areas, as wording and references should be available in the pre-revert version. I also am out of time today. Sandy 13:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I decided to log off a little later, and made a start. [8] Advance apologies: I need help with reference formatting. My goal is to make the article free of ZNet and Venezuelanalysis as soon as possible. I think the task is doable, as databases like Jstor and LexisNexis make things so much easier these days. 172 | Talk 13:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll catch up later in the day. Just to keep in mind as you replace references: a bigger problem with the article is that the content and overall tone of the article (IMO) reflects the POV from those references, so content revisions may be needed in the long run. I hope you'll keep overall tone in mind as you check refs. Sandy 14:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Good work Sandy I believe that this way is far more efficient, I got cut off from the internet at my place so I may only post my opinion sparingly for a while I will try posting and reading all of the above on sat. Flanker(not logged in)
Glad you like it, Flanker. I didn't mean to "take charge", but I was concerned that your time had been wasted on multiple edits, so wanted to try to get us all on the same page with respect to what we're working on. Hope to hear from you on Saturday. Sandy 00:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Flanker response to POV list

  • Too many sections are written from point of view of socialist references provided, with no balance from other references.
A statement does not need to be counterbalanced for precision only for accuracy
  • After Chávez resumed his presidency in April 2002, he ordered several investigations to be carried out, and their official results supported Chávez's assertions that the 2002 coup was sponsored by the United States. No counter claim or reference whatsoever. Dodd left out completely. Thoroughly POV and one-sided. An entire paragraph dedicated to Chavez claims, without a single word of rebuttal. Carter referenced, but no referenced claim of rebuttal. How does such POV become FA?
Because if every claim of fraud were to be documented (Penn poll being the most insane) then the article would become unedlessly big, they claimed fraud and that is a sufficiente sumary don't you think?
I'm not following what you are saying. It is your POV that the Penn Schoen poll is "the most insane". Primary source references from recognized journalists and publications were provided, which do not support your POV. Sandy 15:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The oposition has had easily disprovable theories surface, if you want to add how the Sumate/Penn poll saw chavez lose and be the only contradicting poll then be my guest
  • Súmate left out completely, and all that Chavez did to avoid the first two recalls.
It can be sumarized efficiently
  • Peru, mangled foreign policy, and other gaffes left out, had been added in pre-revert version.
Fine
  • Gerrymandering to increase 5-year single term to possible 16 years now, and stacking of Supreme Court, left out
Gerrymandering has nothing to do with the presidential term, the supreme court should be added but both versions included
Not sure what you mean. The new constitution allowed Chávez to change the term limits to his advantage, and to hold an interim election. These two combined to change the possible term from five years to sixteen. Sandy 15:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Gerrymandering is changing the districts to benefit representative elections, presidential elections are national therefore impossible to gerrymander
Flanker, I apologize for confusing you with my inaccurate use of the word "gerrymandering". If you notice on the talk page, I used it in quotes the first time to indicate I wasn't using the word literally, and then I later dropped the quotes. I should not have done that on a talk page where many of us speak Spanish, since it just confused the issue. I'm not sure what term would be correct, since I don't know of many situations where someone has pulled off all that Chávez did -- maybe vote fixing, vote rigging, and all the rest. I used "gerrymandering" originally in quotes to mean a whole lot of dishonest tampering with the voting process. Sandy 06:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No discussion of damage to economy, currency control, masked by rising oil prices - this is glossed over. Using the Chavez definition of poverty, to show that poverty has declined, is POV. Report *real* numbers from real soures, on internationally-accepted standards, not POV reports of numbers from biased sources.
There is only one internal source for poverty numbers, the gov numbers are official in the eyes of the UN etc. Plus I gave a World Bank source
Separately discussed in another topic here. Chavez had redefined "poverty", resulting in apples and oranges. Both sides should be presented. Sandy 15:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The government did not redefine poverty levels, currency controls? they too have had success in doubling the international reserves and steming capital flight.
  • Is there any discussion of the AD/COPEI corruption, which birthed Chávez?
Why is it needed? aside from one sentence?
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)
  • "Official" links
The government is an official link
Sumate is also an official link, to an NGO. Portalba is not clear to the English-speaking reader. Sandy 15:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought you said official statistics sorry
  • Seven Chávez speeches, no balance
This article is about Chavez you know
Are you saying balance isn't needed ? Sandy 15:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Other speeched would be out of place
  • Many bases for dictatorial claims completely left out, including "I won't go even if 90% vote against me", yet strangely irrelevant quotes included.
Because it was an irrelevant statement that creates fixation considering it was not official policy during the referendum
Irrelevant is your POV. It's relevancy is that it establishes one of many bases for claims that he is "dictatorial". Sandy 15:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Policy makes one dictatorial not bluster and certainly not year old bluster that you officially claim the oposite
  • A career military officer, Chávez founded the leftist Fifth Republic Movement after a failed 1992 coup d'état. Passive voice yields POV: Fails to mention that he led this coup.
Fine fix it
  • Domestically, Chávez has launched massive Bolivarian Missions to combat disease, illiteracy, malnutrition, poverty, and other social ills. Massive? Better "whose goal was to combat ...? June 10 version had corrected things like this.
Fine
  • Chávez has been severely criticized, especially by elements of Venezuela's upper middle and upper classes. Utterly POV: "especially" by a lot of the world, and more than Venezuelan middle and upper classes.
Well it is reality plus many articles can verify the statement
Yes, articles can verify it, but he has also been criticized by others, including human rights organizations, foreign leaders, etc. He has not only been criticized by middle and upper classes in Venezuela, and the word "especially" is misleading. Sandy 15:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
There has only one group that has severely critiscized him and that is the oposition, Bush and Garcia. HRW and AI give him extremely mild critiques check out the US and Colombia for the heavy critiques
  • Worse, Chávez's allies were unable to broadcast their prerecorded tapes on the national airwaves Worse? Utterly POV.
Change the word then
  • As the coup unfolded, Pérez eluded capture, Eluded capture? You'd think he was a fugitive, rather than President. Who was the criminal?
That is a stylistic choice, is evaded a better word?
Neither is better. Both make CAP the suspect. I believe I had fixed it in the pre-revert version, and will go back and check. Sandy 15:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It gets better if you finish the sentence: As the coup unfolded, Pérez eluded capture, and fourteen soldiers were killed ... in the ensuing violence So, now the deaths are attributed to the President eluding capture, not the violent coupster.
...
  • After a two-year imprisonment, Chávez was pardoned by President Rafael Caldera in 1994. Because? By saying nothing, in context of previous paragraphs, it sounds like the issue was with Perez, not Chavez, and he never should have been imprisoned.
I don't get it
There is no discussion of why Caldera pardoned Chavez, leaving the implication that Chavez may have been innocent of charges. Sandy 15:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you verify it with a link?
  • No mention at all of calls for vote abstention, in protest votes. No context for why abstention numbers are important.
It is still irrelevant only 2005 was relevant
  • No mention of the "not a coup" side of the story, which had been addressed in the pre-revert version.
Well then the 92 Coup deserves not a coup side of the story as well
If you have a primary source that states that what happened in 92 wasn't a coup, we should look at it. When asked before, you provided a statement from Chavez, where he claimed that it wasn't a coup: not exactly an unbiased or primary source, rather his opinion. On the other hand, there are primary source and media accounts questioning whether 2002 was a "coup", which we've discussed previously. Sandy 15:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually no we did not you did not find what you just said
  • Chávez's reforms have drawn both critical acclaim and bitter condemnation. He has alienated many Venezuelans, especially in the upper middle and upper classes, who have reported widespread political repression and human rights violations under his rule. Implication is that only middle and upper classes are reporting the human rights violations. Someone has to report them, no?
  • However, Chávez faced a profound dilemma in that, while he wished to promote the redistribution of wealth, increased regulation, and social spending, he did not wish to discourage foreign direct investment (FDI). In keeping with his predecessors, Chávez attempted to shore up FDI influxes to prevent an economic crisis of chronic capital flight and inflation. Reference. "Profound" dilemma elicits sympathy, rather than exploring how his policies affected economy. No significant mention of the damage done to oil industry, masked by rising oil prices.
The damage was caused by striking oil workers not the gov
Some damage was caused by the strike: earlier and ongoing damage to the oil industry in Venezuela was not caused by the strike. Sandy 15:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no verifiable claim that it stated pre strike damage occurred and it is incorrect
  • During this same election, Chávez himself stood for reelection. It hasn't been made clear to the unitiated that Chavez changed what was a single five-year Presidential term to two terms, in addition to wrangling another interim election, resulting in a possible 16-year term.
You are entering the speculative phase lets deal with facts
Are you saying it is speculation that the former presidential term was five years, and that Chavez is now eligible for a total term of 16 years? That is fact. Sandy 15:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
You are correct I apologize
  • No mention of violent take over of Coca-Cola plants to "feed the masses".
Why is it important?
Surely you jest? You don't feed the masses with Coca-Cola.
Why is this relevant again? Is mercal stocked up with only Coca cola?
  • On April 9, 2002, CTV leader Carlos Ortega called for a two-day general strike. There's an abrupt introduction: no mention at all of all that led up to it, or how Chavez was dismantling a state-run oil industry that was well-respected in the industry overall.
that is your POV
No, it's not my POV. It comes from years of reading the most respected oil journals, like Platt's. PDVSA, pre-Chavez, was regarded as one of the best run state oil companies in the world, if not the best. There is far too much work to be done on this article, and I'm trying to proceed in steps so as to build consensus; but, if I ever get the time, I'll find a primary source discussing the prestige enjoyed by PDVSA per-Chavez, and add it to the document. 172 indicates he has access to Lexis-Nexus: he could do it much faster than I, since I have to go to the library, but we haven't seen him for a few days. :-))
Well then you state it like you said it others argue PDVSA had prestige others (not the same I wager) argue PDVSA no longer has prestige
  • Approximately 500,000 people took to the streets on April 11, 2002 They took to the streets for many days.
Again not relevant to April 11
? Sandy 15:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Why is this relevant to the coup what happened the day before?
  • Nevertheless, there were also significant setbacks. Nevertheless? Setbacks? POV.
  • In early and mid-2003, the Venezuelan opposition began the process of collecting the millions of signatures needed to activate the presidential recall provision provided for in the 1999 Constitution. No mention of grassroots, civilian, vounteer organization, Súmate -- just "the opposition". No mention of raids and need to secure the signatures, or gerrymandering of the 20% number needed to effect a recall.
Gerrymandering is not what you think it is, also it should be added how a lot of the signatures were forged as well don't you think?
  • The election was overseen by the Carter Center and certified by them as fair and open.[32] However, the opposition called the results fraudulent, citing documents which indicated that the true results were the complete opposite of the reported ones. Validation of results contains a citation, where fraud claims are unreferenced. POV by failure to reference and document the claims of fraud, including specific allegations, reports, and media accounts. Doesn't allow the reader to see what the other side really says, but gives them plenty of leftist magazine articles.
See above
  • Bolivarian missions: two paragraphs about all that he has supposedly done, not a single counter claim presented.
Well what can be added?
  • Venezuela is a major producer of oil products, which remain the keystone of the Venezuelan economy. Biased by leaving out mention that he increased dependency on oil export revenues.
Venezuela is no more dependant on revenues today than before Chavez
Not according to the data I've seen. Do you have a primary source? I'm working on it, but again, far too much to do.
Check below [9]
  • Media, it sounds like the so-called "opposition" controls the air waves. No mention of the government-owned channels, or the data showing that Chavez commandeered more cadenas than any president before him. POV, by completely glossing over the issue of his control of the media. Leaves out extent of government-owned media, reach, and influence, especially considering Chavez cadenas and hours-long diatribes on radio.
  • although drawing heavily from Simón Bolívar's ideals, according to whom? He calls it that, but no case is made for there being any connection between Chavez and Bolivar's ideology or philosophy. Good marketing. Need to clarify his claim vs. reality.
claim vs reality is original research, Chavez claims it and IMHO Bolivars ideals are regionalist integration, anti-US wearyment and independance everything else is not significant
  • Frequently, pro-Chavez claims in the article are referenced, while "critics claim" is left vague and unreferenced, which doesn't allow the reader to see/explore the extent of criticism or read and access the valid criticism. Here's another one: Chávez's opponents, however, are skeptical of the purported autonomy of the "Bolivarian Circles" from the government. The reference list is biased to the left. When "critics claim", there is no reference or supporting detail provided. Over-referenced article from leftist POV, under-referenced from the right. This had been corrected in June 10 version.
  • No discussion of significant escalation of crime under Chávez, or how he has furthered social insecurity, class division and racial hatred.
True must be added for both sides, racial hatred implies that it is chavistas that are commiting the crimes I know I am messing up tour post but I feel it is more efficient this way too.Flanker 18:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
As to your comments of "fine", "fix it", "add it", etcetera, I am attempting to proceed based on consensus. IMO, we only had a fully-restored article as of yesterday, and I would like to wait a few days, for comment by WGee, 172, and others before introducing content revisions. Then, if the article needs to be reverted again in the future (not at all an unlikely possibility, considering the controversial topic), we would at least have an updated version with intact content for reversion. I also prefer to shorten the article before beginning to NPOV it. By shortening it first, we can avoid wrangling over passages and references that may end up deleted anyway. I'm going to wait a bit before proceeding, pending comments from other contributing editors, but my next step (besides whatever is listed on the To Do list) is to shorten the article to something akin to either Saravask's last version, or the pre-revert version. I also hope that, by proceeding in this fashion, we can avoid again rebuilding a hodge-podge set of claims and counterclaims. Sandy 15:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Fine I just want for things to happen in here (prose links etc) and then be moved Flanker 23:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Re-formatted for readability (Flanker, please remember to indent responses with colons. Thanks.) Sandy 14:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

A note on referencing mechanism

I don't speak Harvard references, so can't fix those, but I notice several editors having problems with m:Cite/Cite.php, which isn't every well explained on its page. The key is in understanding naming of refs. First, they don't have to use quotes. You can just name a ref SandyRef1, for example, with no quotes. Second, you only have to name a reference if you're going to use it twice. That makes it easier to refer to it the second time, and causes the ref number to repeat, indicating uses a, b, etcetera. If something is only used once, you can just use the ref tag, with no name. So, there are two problems occurring. If you are editing the article, and delete a named ref, that causes all future uses of that reference to go blank (I just put two back in). If you delete a named ref, you must check the article for all other uses of that same ref, and replace with the full ref (or I'll go back and do it). Second, if you inadvertently use a reference twice, without naming it, the same reference will show up twice on our list. So, it's necessary to periodically review the entire ref list, checking for duplicates. Hope this helps -- I'd say I highly recommend reading the Cite.php description above if you're working on refs, but it's really not written very clearly at all. You can see my example of a short, hopefully correctly referenced article using cite.php on Tourette syndrome. At some point, we need to find someone who knows how to clear out the other referencing mechanisms in the article, for consistency. Sandy 00:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

All right, I figured out how to do it, and changed a few of them to cite:php. I don't know how to change the cites that indicate a specific page number, and those books have to remain in reference, so I'll need help on that. Also, I trimmed the References section a bit (took out a dead Yahoo link and a VenAnalysis article). References (as opposed to Notes, which are inline citations) are supposed to represent general works upon which the article is based. So, what to do about Chomsky? I don't want to delete more of those without consensus, but some of them show a source of imbalance. Sandy 01:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
You already deleted all I did so why worry about Chomskey's feelings ;)Flanker 18:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I went through each of your edits, reconstructed them, and they are all discussed above, including links :-) Please let me know if you've reviewed my work above, so I strike it from the ToDo List. Sandy 23:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

1998-2000, the changes introduced by the The Constitutional Assembly.

Bringing forward Ozzy's post from talk page archive, as it is still an active topic. Sandy 15:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the redistribution of powers made by the Constitutional Assembly should be shown. Before the constitunte, Venezuela had only 3 powers. I am almost sure that the word power would be the equivalent to the branches in other countries. The 3 powers were: Exectutive - President and ministers, Judicial - courts, judges, etc, and Legislative - National Congress. The constituyente added to new powers: Morale - Attorney General + Public Defender + Procurator General, and Electoral - National Electoral Council (CNE in Spanish). Also, besides the name of the country, any institution names were changed: National Court of Justice to Highest Tribunal of Justice, Supreme Electoral Council to National Electoral Council (CNE), National Congress to National Assembly.--Ozzyprv 05:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

POV list (biased against)

Well we cannot have one side and not the other:

  • Most issues of Human rights are not put in context, AI, and HRW detail only critiscism (that is what they are for) but compared to other countries it is not that relevant aside from the accusation (even sweeden check it out. [10]) and I would not even mention Colombia and the US itself [11][12]
    • You argue for verifiability, not truth (I argue that it's better to aim for both :-) Your discussion of AI and HRW context belongs in their articles. Sandy 14:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The ICC court ruling was reached (for all intents and purposes) and it was dropped due to unverifiable claims. (needs priority see here [13])
  • The economy was sabotaged for 2 years when the oposition was strongest, numbers need to reference the poverty hump for example: have a look.[14]
  • Political prisoners report is vastly outdated, the only one of the list that is in jail is Carlos Ortega and that is because he returned to Venezuela and was using forged documents.
  • Chavez's version of the 92 coup, even though I disagree with it it must be added for balance.
  • The reason why the Sumate drive was being rejected (preemption of sorts for Sandy)
  • The reason Sumate is being charged
  • The recent threat on ending airwave frequency consessions is NOT shuting them down (think FCC) [15], I could find a translation of the comments made by Chavez, that said it is NOT policy it is empty habladera if we are to add everything Chavez says but does not do then we are bordering the irrelevant.
  • No mention of the dozens of infrastructure projects slated to finish or open this year (Metros, rail, stadiums, bridges, highways etc) of course the viaduct1 collapse and the oposition claims of negligence are inevitable as well.
    • Counteracted by no mention of all the deterioration in the infrastructure, and his failure to even keep pace with older administrations on building housing, who did not have the oil windfall Chavez has to work with. Sandy 14:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The exclusion from the private DATOS firm for the "Venezuelan american chamber of commerce" detailing almost a 50% real increase in income for the poorest sector of society in the last 2 years. alone.[16]
  • No mention of Venezuela being one of the best host for refugees in the world [17]
  • The Carter Center claimed that in 2000 the elections demonstrated the will of the people (their definition of fraud is disproving this) however they could not verify the elections for logistical reasons.
  • Chavez claims that the coup was backed by the US is underdeveloped, no mention of US NAVY ships entering Venezuela's national waters, the claim by a Navy insider that they were there for Electronic and information (jamming) warfare against his government. No mention of the Orchilla plane claim, or the Fleischer press conference were they backed the carmona govt. Or that they knew the coup was about to happen and the timetable they gave it. etc.
    • Everyone who paid attention knew something would happen soon in Venezuela: you didn't have to be CIA to guess that. An anti-Bush writer for a French liberal publication claiming Navy involvement isn't proof. Sandy 14:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Atributing every single sucsess and every single failure on Chavez as opossed to the executive, other branches, local/state/federal, and lastly the people themselves. I can understand policies initiated by most branches as "Chavez allies" but the judicial has ruled on many occasions against the government most recently the case against Mari Pili [18]
    • There are no other branches. Chavez has consolidated all power in his hands, and eliminated oversight, including judicial. That's not only verifiable, it's true :-) Sandy 14:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Absence of multiple polls (including oposition polls: consultores, datanalysis, Keller and assoc) showing Chavez with a 50-60 point lead over his nearest rival for the presidential election.
  • No mention that not a single journalist is currently jailed in Venezuela [20]Flanker 16:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
    Misleading. 141.153.125.31 21:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No mention of any single call for his assasination, Pat Robertson being the most infamous but also CAP and Orlando Urdaneta have called for his assasination from Miami TV.Flanker 16:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No mention of Luis Posada Carriles and other terrorists the US refuses to extradite to Venezuela. Flanker 21:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No mention Venezuelan democracy is ranked by its citizens as the second most satisfactory in the region. Showing the most rapid increase overall since 97 [21] [22] Flanker 04:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

For now that is most of what I can think of.Flanker 18:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should start on this, I have given quite a few days and nobody has disagreed at all. Flanker 16:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with almost all of it (as either incorrect, unencyclopedic, wrong article, too much detail, inaccurate, or irrelevant), but don't have time to spend on every single false claim raised on the talk page. Some of it is bordering on strange: Chavez destabilizes Colombia, leading to emigration to Venezuela, and you want to credit him for Venezuela being a refugee haven? Even the parts that are clearly true and won't need to be refuted and rebutted (like Pat Robertson) may fall into the not-needed in an already too long, unbalanced article. Pat Robertson shot himself in the foot, and spoke for no one but his nobody self. If you are determined to make an already too long, unbalanced article even longer and more unbalanced, turning it again into a hodgepodge of claims and counterclaims, might I suggest you add the detail to the daughter articles, for later summary into the main article? Your list shows the article is not comprehensive, but an encyclopedia entry doesn't need to cover every piece of minutiae of Chavez's life. It needs to present both sides of the story: right now, it presents only one, from one POV. Sandy 04:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
WOW you are aware that Colombia had been in a civil war 40 years before Chavez? Venezuela is one of the leading refugee countries on earth should that not be noted? Pat Robertson is just one guy I gave you 3 examples and can link to them if you like. Claiming that calls for assasination are not relevant to the article of the individual in question is what is strange IMHO, As for POV I disagree again right now I see it as unbalanced against. I warned you about hodgepodging but at this stage it is inevitable. I will start detailing the things that are right there such as the Carter center veredict on 2000.Flanker 20:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Chavez has further destabilized Colombia. Venezuela as a refugee host might be an appropriate addition to Venezuela, not Chávez. I can see summarizing all of the assassination calls in one sentence (something to the effect of "several prominent people have publicly called for his assassination" -- yes, I agree that is perhaps encyclopedia-worthy, but singling out Pat Robertson isn't, since he spoke for himself as nobody - it belongs in his article). I don't think the hodgepodging is inevitable: I hope you'll adopt the encyclopedic tone that exists in the FA version, and summarize main concepts rather than adding detail that will put us over 100KB. Even better would be to cut half of the article out first, merging content into daughter articles, before adding more content to a laboriously long article. Sandy 21:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
That is quite the unfounded accusation, if anything Colombia is better off than they were 4 years ago, a credit to Uribe. As for the rest: when the shoe is on the other foot you want summarized sentences no? ;) I cannot beleive that an event that caused more articles writen about Chavez from every news source ever is not relevant but quotes 2 years removed from the referendum, hardly reported and later retracted when it was relevant, needs to be added. This article is now a hodgepodge again and there is no stopping it, I was a fool to think it could be avoided with such a strong crontroversy and nuances.Flanker 21:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you give credit to Uribe where due, in spite of Chavez's destabilization. If you think Pat Robertson is that important, then add it, but the publicity was not over Chávez, it was over Robertson as an attack on his hypocrisy and the far right he represents -- it would have made news if he had said it about anyone else as well. Yes, we could avoid a hodgepodge. It's never too late to decide you want to work together, rather than put up obstacles (no quotes, no links, no speeches, no references to words you don't agree with ... ) Sandy 22:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Too late :( It did not seem fair that you were having all the fun ;), the hodgepodge is inevitable, the best we can do is present all sides and lets just let the reader decide. As for Robertson I made it about Chavez not him.Flanker 04:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You call this fun?  :-) I thought working according to consensus would have been fun. My proposal was always that we get the article size down, remove the statements based on biased sources or re-source them, and then re-evaluate what needed to be added. You started adding and requesting mediation over one link, which was to help the balance problem, which has still not been addressed :-) I suggest that my plan might have given us a better result, but we'll do it your way. The biased sources still haven't been removed, and you continue to add statements sourced on VenAnalysis. I'm sorry to see you added that information about Wayne Madsen, which is so thoroughly debunked, since it then required me to grow the article even more. I like the way you handled Robertson. I still don't think Venezuela as a refugee haven belongs in the Chavez article (maybe the Venezuela article). Threat of shutting down a station accomplished what Chavez wants, and I could go on analyzing each point above. For example, if you add the democracy data you mention, I'll add the data showing how Venezuela's freedom ranking has dramatically fallen, according to a number of sources. Is this the best way to proceed? I think not. The POV in the article is pro-Chavez: if you don't want to allow that to be fixed, the article will again become unwieldy. Again, I propose our efforts would be more effective if we work on the article size, then biased sources, then update outdated sections (like foreign policy and economy), and then see what's missing still in terms of balance. The writing needs to be in the context of an encylopedic entry, rather than an entire book about Chavez, which is again the direction this is heading. Everything you propose to add has a counterpoint. We can do it this way if you insist, but someone is likely to come along and revert or reduce it all at some point in the future. Sandy 16:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Venanalysis is a verifiable source but Vcrisis is a Blog

Since it keeps popping out I decided to put it again from the archives.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperFlanker (talk • contribs) 18:45, 17 June 2006

Copying question from Talk:Súmate: Flanker, you deleted a reference, indicating that "Vcrisis is not a primary source but a blog". If VCrisis references are to be deleted, than there are many dubious references in the article. I'm wondering how you distinguish, for example, an organization like VenAnalysis from VCrisis, and why, in your opinion, VenAnalysis is any different than VCrisis? TIA, Sandy 00:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Vcrisis is a web log[23], Venezuela Analysis seeks to be (and in my opinion is) a primary source [24]. They are both biased (although Vcrisis is far more extreme and violent) however the difference in samples is pretty evident [25]vs [26]In the end if you are not convinced check this out[27] without comment.Flanker 01:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Having used the search function further I think it is decided. He does not want to be linked from wikipedia.

"Since the 'editors' of your pages keep deleting away comments that do not meet their political criteria, I demand for all the links pointing at my site to me removed immediately and permanently from your pages. Should you have a problem locating them do visit the pages about neo-fascist Hugo Chavez.

I am not interested in the slightest in contributing with a politically partisan encyclopediae."[28]Flanker 01:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"Seeks to be?" "Vcrisis is more extreme and violent?" The two samples, [29]vs [30], don't relate. IMO, VCrisis simply declares its bias more openly than VenAnalysis does, but they are equally biased, and if we are to delete VCrisis, we should also delete VenAnalysis. Actually, per all the talk page comments (above), we should try to replace all the VenAnalysis references anyway, since they are a known source of bias, and if they have anything legit to say, it could be found elsewhere. Even more problematic is Weisbrot and the partisan CEPR, but since you keep adding it back, that's not a hill worth dying on :-) I sure have enjoyed working with you: it is interesting to see other points of view. Those comments from VCrisis are revealing: IMNSHO, Wiki has been an enormous source of pro-Chávez bias, and those comments seem warranted. :-) Sandy 01:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I have tried to replace venanalysis with what I think can be found in the Mainstream media however since some are very specific some are really hard to change, you should give VenAnalysis more credit they are not all candy and nuts and occasionally post critical pieces (two of them previously linked but one deleted, may have been you ;) [31][32]
As for other points of view, I believe the editor in question is against or does not understand NPOV and Verifiability, both sides of the coin have to be put in but both sides need to be verified by a primary source.Flanker 01:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not aware of having deleted those two, but my head is in a spin from all of these references, so it could have happened! There is still so much work to do: if I can find time to help replace those sources, I'll work on it. Gotta sleep some time, though :-) Sandy 01:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
With re: to CEPR I reverted it because you stated that it is not 'official' however it did contain official INE sources, I believe you stated before that the INE were not official and I disagree all government sources are deemed to be official sources (hence government people are called officials), even if they are propaganda, lies, infactual etc. Now they can be disputed. The second link I gave about the world bank (originally from Panorama but could not find it anywhere else but... you guessed it) is more impartial but not official. Flanker 01:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the above, CEPR contains their interpretation of gov't numbers, which is not an unbiased source. (If you still have doubts about CEPR, please use the google search function on their website, cepr.net, to search on Venezuela. The headlines give a clear indication of where they stand. I hope you know what "non-partisan" means in Washington.)

Look this is the umpteenth time, it is not about bias, CEPR is biased towards their ideals but they are still a big enough think tank to be asked to testify in front of congress, they are a verifiable source.Flanker 14:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed the article history and talk page, and found that Vcrisis was left in the FA version for balance (specifically mentioned on edit by Saravask). The article is still significantly out of balance, with the preponderance of VenAnalyis and leftist sites, so deleting Vcrisis before fixing the rest will call for stronger tagging of the article, due to the biased sources. Leaving one source for balance, against a sea of biased sources, is not unreasonable. Also, I don't understand your objection to an external link to a blog. Since Vcrisis is Spanish, and VenAnalysis is English, we currently provide no balance in this article for the English-speaking reader. Sandy 23:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Again it is not about balance, balance can be made in other ways, however adding blogs goes directly against verifiability, as a matter of fact it is policy, it can only be allowed when the article is about the site in question. Besides balancing out Venanalysis with Vcrisis is like balancing MLK with Stormfront (website). Anybody can start a blog, heck even I could (much better job that Vcrisis too) and you would not like it if I linked it here ;).Flanker 14:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Flanker, can you suggest other sites that can be added to balance the preponderance of leftist sources and bias in the article? Also, can you please quote the policy you are citing? Sandy 14:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Well you do have it linked in your user page:
"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, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.The policy page that governs the use of sources is Wikipedia:Verifiability. About self-published sources, which includes books published by vanity presses, and personal websites, it says: "Sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight..."WP:RS Notice it has nothing to do with bias but about internal verifiability.
I would recomend el universal (some articles are badly translated to english), they seem to be the equivalent of Venanalysis on the other side of the spectrum.Flanker 15:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation: now I see the confusion.
  • 1. Considering censorship and limited freedom of the press in Venezuela, using eluniversal.com for balance would only provide censored balance. Since the media in Venezuela is no longer allowed to criticize the President, I think we have a pretty clear argument showing why our primary sources are limited.
  • 2. Your argument above is with respect to sources, not external links. You continue to delete VCrisis from external links, when Saravask left it there specifically for balance. Sandy 15:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 1. The media in Venezuela is actually very free, in some regards freer than the US since there are fewer rules and standards, the only excpetion being desacato/libel/slander but that has only been strengthend (it was in the books since forever) and even Chavez has said he would never enforce them. A few journalists have been pardoned from prosecution by Chavez whether to look good outside or if he disagrees with the law in principle is debatable. As for evidence against your statement:[33] The Venezuelan media has absolutely no problem in calling out the president on any issue whatsoever: I would higly recommed you use the link to Union Radio and notice the extremist vitrol from the monolithic lineup.
  • 2 Sources and external links are one and the same, what we use are notes that are specific to a statement and external links that are general, I removed 3 links: Venezuela information office is a government funded source for english propaganda, Vcrisis is an extremist blog that wishes not to be linked (three strikes), Micomandante.com is an extremist racist site. I questioned 11deAbril but I noticed no extremism and decided not to fiddle with it.Flanker 17:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
1. Numerous primary sources reference statements that the media is not free in Venezuela. 2. I think you're mixing up Notes, References, and External Links. Sandy 19:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
1. Alright there is a difference between what makes it into the article and what is the talk page justification for something not making it. claiming el universal is currently anything but anti-government is obfustication. Although it is lightyears better than when it was an unverifiable anti-government source.
2. Vcrisis still has a lot against it, it is violent, extremist, unverifiable, and asks not to be linked, it really has no re-deeming qualities other than being anti-government which is not unique on the internet.Flanker 20:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that VCrisis is not an ideal resource. But, since El Universal is subject to laws restricting freedom of the press, Vcrisis and 11Abril are the only sources we have to counterbalance VenAnalysis and the preponderance of leftist sites referencing the article content. Sandy 21:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Vcrisis is not allowed on policy period, just like NPOV is policy. El Universal is in no way restricted to any laws of freedom of the press any more than the NYT is restricted by laws after what happened to Judith Miller that said it should not be restricted because its bias is quite verified. They are the counter-balance to Venanalysis, 11april is not a counterbalance based on verifiability alone (but I do not object to it as an appendix) but Vcrisis is not allowed period on all 3 counts mentioned above, perhaps if he had not been violent, extremist, or a blog then we could have had a decent anti- source as well. MLK does not have stormfront or the KKK website linked anywhere in his article and neither should this.Flanker 22:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what to do next, since the FA version certainly had VCrisis, and you haven't stated any Wiki policy that disallows blogs as External Links. An external link is not a reference, and including the link for balance is not the same as using it as a source. Perhaps we can sideline this discussion until you, WGee, and 172 complete the job of cleaning up all the other biased references, and we can see where we stand in terms of balance? Sandy 01:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Flanker, VCrisis is not being used as a source. It is listed as an External Link, as explained in past edit histories and talk page entries to provide balance to the extreme preponderance of socialist and leftist references used in the article. Do not delete it again without establishing a policy against a blog for balance as an external link, or unless you can suggest alternative information to provide balance to the article. Sandy 00:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

We will have to seek mediation then.Flanker 16:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I submitted it for mediation here [34] Flanker 16:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
We have so much work ahead of us still: I regret that you don't consider that we have other ways of resolving this impasse over one External link, especially after weeks of working so hard together. I've offered to continue waiting (it's been almost two weeks) — to allow time for replacement of the preponderance of biased sources (as discussed in the FARC and agreed upon several times in the talk page[35]) — before tagging the article POV. I've offered alternative (albeit outdated) sites for balance [36]. I've asked you to look at policy and explain your interpretation of it, and I've asked you to suggest sites that would provide the required balance. NPOV should be our primary goal: I can't think of anything else I can offer to you as a way of compromising or achieving balance in the article, and none of the options seem acceptable to you. We cannot achieve NPOV through a preponderance of biased references [37], and censored Venezuelan media. [38] [39] [40] [41] [42][43][44] VCrisis is far from an ideal External link, but there are no ideal External links, partly because of the limitations on freedom of the press in Venezuela. Unless you can suggest or come up with something else, VCrisis is all we've got for balance. You want no direct quotes, no speeches other than from Chávez, and no External links to sites for balance. It seems that you are objecting to many possible sources of eliminating POV from the article. I hope we can reach a compromise, as we have so much work to do still. Saludos, Sandy 21:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
But you still don't listen to what I say, you claim that the Venezuelan media is not free despite every single evidence to the contrary... I mean do you even care to find out? I gave you a radio link that YOU can CHECK, YOU not what others TELL you. Vcrisis is intolerant, intimidating, violent and extremist, they are the last thing Venezuela needs but they exist. I agreed with 11 april and militares democraticos, neither are blogs and both are rather extreme (militares is violent as well advocating a coup). The rest is just comon sense should we add a Chavez speech to GWB's article for balance?Flanker 21:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Flanker, in spite of your belief to the contrary, which I respect that you deeply believe, the press is not free in Venezuela, as verified by the small selection of many sources above, and as discussed in the article and an abundance of primary sources. As you know, in the last week, Chávez threatened to shut down certain stations (link above), and he can and will do that if he feels like it. Not only has he limited freedom of the press, but he has also eliminated balance of powers and he controls the judiciary. So, whatever might be said in the media today is not proof that there are no restrictions: they can be shut down tomorrow. Wiki's readership doesn't know all that the Venezuelan media is *not* saying out of fear of reprisal. ElUniversal.com is not allowed, by law, to say all that is said on the only other sources of balance.
Returning to the subject at hand: are you willing to allow 11Abril (which is as against policy as you say VCrisis is, since it's in Spanish) and MilitaresDemocraticos.com (which doesn't appear to have been updated for more than several years)? Rather than objecting to every means of introducing balance, can you propose a compromise? You are objecting to the only comprehensive, up to date, English-language source of balance. Can you suggest a resolution to this?
On the Mediation request, you say, I argue that if balance is needed then a verifiable non-violent site can easily be found. We've heard for several weeks that the biased references could be easily and quickly replaced, but that hasn't yet happened. If another External Link for balance is available, in English, and up to date, please do suggest it.
On the speeches, any speech about Chávez should be open for consideration (that doesn't mean everything is worthy of being added). You were wrong to object to inclusion of a reliable source reference to Chávez as an "extreme left winger". [45] If a reliable source says that, it can be quoted, even though Wiki shouldn't label Chávez as such. (Note: I am not saying that particular quote is worthy of addition, as I don't think it is: I'm just pointing out that you are putting up blocks to any means of portraying balanced information about Chávez.) Sandy 22:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Again you make judgements on what you are told, Chavez did not threatene to shut them down, I know I saw the clips. What he stated was that if they use public spaces (airwaves are publicly owned) they have to be reviewed when their licence ends. If they say "what the hell" and go cable only the government cannot do a thing. El universal is a print paper and not on the air so it has all the liberty it always had. As for anti-government links I give you for the third time El Universal, free (no subscription), anti-government, verifiable, and yes in english[46]. Lastly how can there be consensus on policy? "extreme left" is not allowed by policy. Wikipedia is not a democracy and just like I disagree with the lack of consensus on the FARC issue we just have to accept it.Flanker 22:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
To be fair Sandy, the citations that infer the press isn't free come from some of the same places that call April 11 a coup. (If I've got the right end of the stick from your above comments). Out of interest, would you compare the media of VZ to that of (say) Britain - which has a heavily regulated media? --Zleitzen 22:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I am the mediator for this dispute. The mediation page is available here. I hope we can sort this out amicably. Dev920 23:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The aritcle was FARC'ed?

How was this ruling reached? was there consensus? what needs to be done to fix it? I can't say I am not disappointed after all the work made. Flanker 18:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The links are at the top of the talk page. Sandy 16:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes but that peer review was old, it needed to be resubmited with the current version at the very least due to the massive revert, and even so there was no consensus on what to do.Flanker 17:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree; the outdated FARC did not take into account the current state of the article. I don't know who declared a consensus, but it seems like a disingenuous tactic. -- WGee 01:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It appears that the 8 Remove votes applied equally to both versions, and the 3 Keep votes were weak, as the work clearly wasn't being done, regardless of the version considered. Sandy 02:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Applied equally to both versions? How so? Also, it bewilders me to think that an article can appear on the main page one day and then the same version enitrely stripped of its FA status the next. That's nothing to do with you, just a comment about the FA nomination system. -- WGee 03:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree the FA nomination system has problems, as the POV Chávez article flew under the radar. I wish all articles went through a serious peer review by knowledgeable peers before coming to FA nomination, as the Wiki Physicians do for medical articles on WP:MCOTW. By the time a medical article comes to FA nomination, it has had to make it through a team of physicians, not just a group of "fans" who may or may not have even read the article top to bottom, checked the references, or know anything about the subject.

You misstate about "one day to the next": the elapsed time between versions was six months. The review process allows for a much longer period. In this case, the FARC was not closed for at least a week (IIRC) after the revert, and in that week, the revert was never fully restored to a current, updated, Wikified version.

There were 8 removes, 3 keeps and 2 "comments" in lieu of votes. Remember, admins closing votes don't only look at the tallies, they look at the arguments, and the strength of the arguments.

  • Analyzing the keeps:
    • 1. "Haven't noticed any POV." Not a strong argument, considering the extensive detail and examples of POV, which pertained more to the original version than the pre-revert version, which we were almost finished NPOVing. The argument for that keep was weaker for the original FA than the pre-revert version: the pre-revert needed a serious copyedit, but was almost to the point of removing the POV tag.
    • 2. "quite easy to replace that handful of citations ... relatively minor and easy to fix," but two weeks later, they had not been fixed (and have still not been fixed three weeks later), so it looks like the admin made the right call on that one.
    • 3. "don't know why the decision has to be restrained to timelines, considering work is ongoing," but the FARC extended beyond the normal two weeks, and the work wasn't being done, and still hasn't been done. Again, the admin appears to have weighed all the factors, and probably saw that the work wasn't being done. If we have to mediate every External Link, it's not likely we'll get there quickly, if ever.
  • The 2 "comment" votes:
    • 1. "clearly needs a bit of work but this should not take long." But more than two weeks elapsed, and the work wasn't being done.
    • 2. "others may help", but others didn't help.
  • Of the 8 removes, most of them demonstrated that their comments pertained to both the old version and the reverted version. One Remove was for a copyedit of the lead, and the comments applied exactly to the FA version as to the pre-revert version. Caracas1830's Remove applied to the FA version, accurately. Enano's and my Remove votes applied to the FA equally (POV). Rama seconded mine. And, several editors indicated specifically that productive work was ongoing BEFORE the revert. The revert probably was the final blow, as it appeared destructive, without consensus, and to alienate those editors actually doing the work. The Remove vote that summed it up the best, IMO, was (seconded by another Remove vote):
    • "It's not good enough to grant FA status, and then clean up the article. I agree that the article needs clean-up and a serious revamping of its citations (they are largely socialist, and thus inherently biased). However, since the article does not currently meet FA requirements, it should not currently have FA status. Remove FA status, clean-up, apply again." The largely socialist, inherently biased references were from the FA version, and are still there, so again, it looks like the admin looked at both versions, and made the right call.

It seems like the arguments in favor of keeping the article were likely invalidated by the fact that no one did the work that was demonstrably needed to the FA version as well. But the comments to Remove applied to the FA version as well. Besides, don't you think a revert of six months of work shows inherent instability, violating a criteria for Featured Article? Maybe the revert could have saved the original FA article, if the article had been fully and quickly restored to an updated version, and the issues had been quickly addressed. That wasn't happening after the revert, and still isn't happening, so removing the FA was the right call. We still have editors making the same kinds of hodgepodge edits, and failing to work for consensus, that led to the original FARC. And, if you think the FA version was solid, then why has Flanker gone to mediation over one External Link that was in the FA version, specifically for balance as mentioned by Saravask? That, again, shows the FA version was not stable. Now, we've lost three weeks, and the article is again headed down the same wrong path that led to its deterioration before. Sandy 04:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I closed the FARC and I'll tell you stability was a paramount concern insofar as the revert hadn't gelled and the page settled down. There was no sense looking at the version or the comments in the FARC nom that "we're all on the same page now". The balance issue seems still to be a concern, the length (and, conversely, a lack comprehensiveness), the refs and so on. And the "nose count" did indeed point to remove, particularly insofar as people toward the end of the nom still felt it problematic. Marskell 15:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
But the trail end did not represent a review either, frankly I got over it but I still claim it was not done properly.Flanker 20:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately this article went through before the FARC merger to WP:FAR. You'll notice now that prior to the actual "keep"/"remove" period it must be reviewed for two weeks. In terms of the old FARC, which is just one period, it was handled properly. Marskell 16:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that the article is headed for disaster, and I refute your claim that the work to update this article is not being done: just look at the talk page, and the diffs. Also, I certainly do not think that the FA version was "solid" (i.e. flawless); however, I do think that it is a better foundation for improvement.
Futhermore, I'm not upset about the article loosing its FA status; I just think it would have been more appropriate to base the decision on comments pertaining specifically to the current article, rather than leaving an administrator to decide which arguments are still valid and how much weight they hold.
--WGee 18:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Bloomberg report of TV station shut down

Including the last sentence added to the final paragraph of Chavez and the media, which was reverted by Flanker, for discussion. I can't recall who added this passage, but I think it was an anon editor.

In June 2006 he stated that he may shut down dissenting TV stations when the concessions are to be reviewed. (Kennedy, A. Chavez Threatens to Shut Down Venezuelan TV Stations. Bloomberg.com. Accessed 15 June 2006.)

I hope that we can build a balanced, unbiased article, without getting into a point-counterpoint hodgepodge. We had almost gotten the June 10 version to the point where there was some balance. We don't need to add everything Chavez has done: we do need to add enough basic fact that his term can be viewed in a balanced context, and that this article can move beyond being an advertisement for Chavez. He has limited freedom of the press, and that has not been made clear in the article. Sandy 23:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agreee that not everything should be added or else we would have to get the other side leading to size, as for limited freedom of speech it is on par with the United States IMHO (stronger on one side weaker on the other), You should check out Union radio[47] or Globovision [48] and see/hear it for yourself.Flanker 14:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Flanker objection to direct quotes

Copied from ToDO List: Review unreferenced statement, introduced by anon editor, and lost on revert (under foreign policy, Peru presidential affair): Garcia responded by saying that Chavez was "a midget dictator with a big wallet." Update: Here is a source, should we decide to use it. Forbes SG

For stylistic reasons I disagree with any sort of quotations other than from Chavez himself it is afterall an article about him.Flanker 19:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you know of any precedent in Wikipedia for such a restriction? I can't imagine there would be one, as it would not allow us to write a correctly-referenced, NPOV article. Sandy 19:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I have no wikipedia policy to back me, however it is simply a stylistic standard that is set throught the article, essentialy prose will need to be solid if it is ever to return to FA status. Any other quote can be sumarized without the need to fill the article with needless quotes.Flanker 20:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we concur on the Garcia quote: I included it here so that we discuss it, and so that the anon editor wouldn't feel overlooked. I agree that we don't want to grow the article again, with point and counterpoint quotes, and don't feel that Garcia's response to Chavez does much to illuminate the topic. We need an overall summary of Chavez's foreign relations gaffes, not a detailed analysis of each. I was just curious about your sweeping statement about "no quotes other than from Chavez himself", and I generally don't support that policy (unless it's a Wiki policy). Sandy 21:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Flanker, you deleted the quote marks from a direct quote I added to the article. Deleting the quote marks while leaving the quote amounts to plagiarism. Again, please cite a Wiki policy which precludes the use of direct quotes. Sandy 03:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... look I am not going to argue to death something that is not policy, if you want to change the style then fine I relent, just please make sure you state who is being quoted.Flanker 04:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of stylistic standards, I see the article is again deteriorating into a hodgepodge of claims and counterclaims, with extensive detail about items covered in daughter articles being added back in to an article which is already in desperate need of shortening. That sort of hodgepodge editing, disregarding Summary Style and daughter article content, is part of what led to the massive revert. Sandy 03:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well but from my part it has mostly been reactive, you made changes that did not meet consensus here (the ICC way is in my humble opinion the best way to deal with changes), the economy part in particular is deeply misleading, yes oil prices helped but the strikes, coup, oil strikes sabotaged the economy on purpose to drive Chavez out. Then there is the 90% irrelevant quote from 2002. Severe critiscism from human right orgs, etc. Most of what you have added is not approved by consensus while a LOT of what I have added I have tried to reach consensus in the talk page first: ICC, Comunal council laws(well sort of), Mudslides.Flanker 04:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Flanker, but I must stridently disagree with your entire statement above. As just one small example, you cannot just say there has been no criticism from human rights orgs, in spite of multiple references provided, just as you can't just say there is freedom of the press in Venezuela, in spite of multiple references. You seem to be editing from opinion rather than Wiki policy. And I stridently disagree that you have worked towards consensus. You have put up unreasonable obstacles, based on no Wiki policies you can cite, to every referenced statement introduced into the article. Sandy 04:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Flanker objection to speeches other than by Chávez

Copied from ToDO list:

Review newer list of speeches on June 10 version, and decide which to keep.
Like I mentioned on the other thread this is an article about Chavez any other speech by anybody else whether for or against would not have a place.Flanker 19:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The issue on my ToDo list is to review which are there and decide if they are all needed. But you raise a separate question. Can you please point to a Wiki policy that would prohibit us from adding speeches critical of Chávez, for balance to the article about Chávez? If we include only speeches by him, how do we introduce balance and avoid POV? Thanks, Sandy 10:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
By pointing out critiscism of his speeches... Flanker 23:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
So, by your logic, if (as a wild hypothetical example), someone gave a speech entirely about Chávez to, for example, the United Nations, you say we can't use it, even if it's entirely about Chávez and newsworthy worldwide? Again, can you please point to a Wiki policy or example which supports this position? Sandy 03:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, not every field of editing is governed or has to be justified by a Wikipedia policy; decisions like this, for instance, can be made by consensus, without reference to a particular policy.
I believe we can quote people other than Chavez, but only if the meaning of their message would be diminished otherwise. With regards to non-Chavez block quotations, we should keep them to a minimum and only include ones from the utmost reputable and well-known people or organizations, if absolutely necessary.
-- WGee 19:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
That sounds entirely sound. I don't want to change the style of the article and I agree we should minimize quoting: I just want Flanker to stop putting up obstacles to NPOVing the article that aren't based on anything. (And, thanks for the reminder that I've got to go and fix the plagiarism caused by Flanker's removal of quotes, if I can find it.) Sandy 22:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Archive talk page

I'd like to archive TOC items 1 - 19 above, as all of these items have been addressed, or are detailed later in the talk page. (Mudslides were resolved, POV issues are detailed later in the talk page, consensus about which version to use was established, ICC ruling was resolved, 53 Pres and IPA were addressed. All of Flanker's reverted edits are listed on the ToDo list, as is the need to review pictures. Before archiving these sections, we need to resolve the Titles and Honors section, and 172 needs to review my changes to his edits during the revert. I would carry forward the Article Size discussion, as I'm not sure that is resolved. Please let me know if you disagree with archive. Sandy 13:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I archived TOC 1 - 20 (included the Sandbox, since no one is using it). If anyone still disputes that the article size needs to be reduced, please carry forward the discussion. Sandy 23:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ Conexion social. (Conexion social, 2006). Law Of Communal Councils. Retrieved June 9, 2006.
  2. ^ Latin Business Chronicle. (Latin Business Chronicle, Oct 2005). "GDP Growth: Venezuela Best". Retrieved 18 Oct 2005. "Venezuela will likely end the year with an economic expansion of 7.8 percent, the IMF forecasts. ECLAC's forecast is 7.0 percent. However, both figures mark a slowdown compared with last year's growth rate of 17.9 percent, which was Latin America's best performance last year as well."
  3. ^ Latin Business Chronicle. (Latin Business Chronicle, April 2006). "GDP Growth: Argentina Best". Retrieved 13 Jun 2005. "Venezuela's economy, Latin America’s fourth-largest, is expected to grow by 6.0 percent this year, the IMF predicts. ECLAC expects a 7.0 percent GDP increase. Last year, the economy grew by 9.3 percent last year, the highest in the region, according to IMF data."
  4. ^ Bloomberg.(Bloomberg, May 16 2006) Venezuelan 1st-Qtr GDP Grows 9.4 Percent on Oil Surge (Update1). Retrieved 13 Jun 2006 .
  5. ^ Instituto Nacional de Estadistica.(INE, Jan 1999) Globales de Fuerza de Trabajo. Retrieved 13 Jun 2006.
  6. ^ Instituto Nacional de Estadistica.(INE, April 2006) de Fuerza de Trabajo. Retrieved 13 Jun 2006.
  7. ^ Weisbrot, M., Sandoval, L., and Rosnick, D. (2006), "Poverty Rates In Venezuela: Getting The Numbers Right" Center for Economic and Policy Research, Retrieved May 31, 2006.
  8. ^ Venezuela Analysis. "World Bank: Venezuela decreased poverty", Retrieved 9 June 2006.
  9. ^ Central Intelligence Agency. (CIA, 1998). The World Factbook 1998: Venezuela. Retrieved 18 Oct 2005. "Infant mortality rate: total: 27.52 deaths/1,000 live births ... Life expectancy at birth: total population: 72.66 years ... (1998 est.)"
  10. ^ Central Intelligence Agency. (CIA, 2005). The World Factbook 2005: Venezuela. Retrieved 18 Oct 2005. "Infant mortality rate: total: 22.20 deaths/1,000 live births ... Life expectancy at birth: total population: 74.31 years ... (2005 est.)"
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hugo_Chávez/Archive_11&oldid=749839843"