Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

A so-called "anti-imperialist"

This phrase was jarring when I read it. I suggest it simply be replaced by "An anti-imperialist" i.e. that the dismissive "so-called" be removed along with the scare quotes around "anti-imperialist."

The use of scare quotes and "so-called" conveys no information except to demonstrate the bias of the writer. Sneering at the very concept of anti-imperialism is out of place here. There factually is something called anti-imperialism (there's even a Wikipedia article about it) so there is no place for denigrating the concept with "so-called" and scare quotes. And there is no doubt that Chávez himself is an anti-imperialist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.150.165 (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

61st President

Years ago, I numbered the infobox of this article, showing Chavez as the 61st President of Venezuela. Recently a citation tag has been added by an editor - requesting proof that Chavez is the 61st President. So, to those who frequent this article, what's your view: is Chavez the 61st President of Venezuela? or should the numbering be removed from his infobox & the infoboxes of his predecessors. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

He's the 61st President, as noted here and here.JoelWhy (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

And Fox News is getting it from Wikipedia, where it has been for years in spite of ample discussion on the talk page there explaining why that number is bunk that was made up ... on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Very well. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, my bad. Both of those links are actually just other pages copying Wikipedia! lol...let me look again...JoelWhy (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not finding a good citation for this. According to the Wiki page with the List of Presidents of Venezuela, Chavez is the 61st unique President, but the 52nd "selected all." I'm not entirely sure what that means, though...:/ JoelWhy (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Obviously the numbers were taken from that wiki page, and the numbers there are OR, meaning they should be removed even from that page. The list offers three different sets of numbers, but by different counting methods you could come up with even more different sets. Clearly there isn't one unique numbering. Mewulwe (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

If the numbering is removed here, numberings should be removed from all of Chavez' predecessors. The numbering of South American presidents tends to be a difficult task. I only added 61st, due to the predecessors being numbered. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The List of Presidents article is bunk, with too many problems to name. Numbering of presidents in Venezuela, as if there were logical and consistent succession as in the US, is unreasonable and absurd. That article is original research and has needed to be defeatured for years; there's a long and very old discussion on that article's talk page detailing the issues. Remove the numbers; they make no sense in the context of Venezuela history and politics-- the Wikipedia article is original research by someone who thought Presidents in Venezuela could be numbered as they are in the US. If someone has time, please locate the discussion we had on talk there more than four years ago, and submit that "Featured List" to be defeatured-- it's bogus and original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

criticism section?

¡¿Where's the criticism section?! Chávez is a very controversial guy. --Lacarids (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Criticism is supposed to be incorporated into the various sections of the article. It is not supposed to have its own section.

Unfortunately, over the years, large amounts of reliably sourced criticism have been removed from this article. This dif contans a few examples that have been removed in recent months. (Please note that the editor who did the "after" version is not necessarily responsible for removing any of the content, as this dif spans a period of a few months.) Here are three criticisms that have been removed recently:

Since 2003, Chavez's price controls on food have been causing shortages and hoarding.

Some of the farmland that had been productive while under private ownership is now idle under government ownership, and some of the farm equipment sits gathering dust. As a result, food production has fallen substantially. One farmer, referring to the government officials overseeing the land redistribution, stated, "These people know nothing about agriculture."

Under government ownership, the shelves in these supermarkets are often empty.

In each of these cases, only the criticism has been removed, and the positive content remains. This makes the article biased, and is a clear violation of NPOV.

The article would be much better balanced if the above criticism, as well as other criticism, was restored.

Sdm900 (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Note Sdm900 has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Grundle2600 [1]. TFD (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I just did a search at google news, and found this April 2012 article from the New York Times, which states, "... shortages of staples like milk, meat and toilet paper are a chronic part of life here..." The article also cites numerous other specific examples of people being unable to obtain many different kinds of basic goods. This is notable, and should be included. Sdm900 (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is some more criticism that has been removed from the article:

Chavez's price controls have caused shortages of materials used in the construction industry. Chavez has nationalized key industries, including telephone and electric, steel, and cement. As a result of Chavez's nationalizations of the steel and cement industries, production has fallen substantially. Nationwide production of steel rods declined 20 percent in September 2010 compared with a year earlier. Cement output fell 40 percent in the second half of 2009. These shortages have caused new housing construction in 2010 to fall to less than half that of the previous year. In 2010, the government's mismanagement of the nationalized oil industry was so severe that the country actually had to import gasoline, despite having some of the hugest oil reserves in the world. Also in 2010, the government's mismanagement of the nationalized electricity industry was causing shortages of electricity. In December 2006, the Venezuelan government instituted a 15% tax on imported toilet paper, which it described as being a "luxury." The 2010 Index of Economic Freedom ranked Venezuela 174th out of 179 countries.

Because of Chavez's criticsm and legal attacks against the productive members of his country, the country has been experienceing a substantial brain drain. Doctors, teachers, entrepreneurs, business owners, software developers, advertising account executives, scientists, classical musicians, and lawyers have been fleeing the country. Of this brain drain, an editorial in Investor's Business Daily declared, "Chavez talks a lot about Venezuela being a rich country, and extols its vast oil wealth. But the human capital he is throwing out is far more valuable... He's throwing away his country's biggest treasure."

Without this info, the article is POV.

Sdm900 (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales, the founder of wikipedia, made a very lengthy comment in this article's talk archive where he criticized this article for not having enough criticism of its subject. Jimbo cited numerous examples of things that should be in the article, but which were not in the article. He summarized his criticism of the article by saying: "... this article is very very bad and a huge disappointment... The facts of reality are being systematically obscured here. A reader of this article would naturally be impressed with how Chavez appears to have been achieving a certain kind of socialist dream. That it is in fact, as evidence plainly in reliable sources, not quite so rosy, is something that we have kept carefully hidden... The article is a disaster."

Jimbo's observation still stands. Without the above information that I cited, which has been removed from the article, the article is POV.

Sdm900 (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, huge NPOV issues with this article. That is why we've tagged the article as such. Don't expect improvements to be made in the foreseeable future...JoelWhy (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The article's edit history shows that many improvements have been made. It's just that someone else always undoes those improvements. Sdm900 (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I won't have time for the next few days to get into detailed editing, but I've got your back if you make good edits to add that stuff back. It is outrageous that material from the New York Times which is critical of Chavez is systematically excluded. What we talk about now, with respect to his food policies, is totally absurd propaganda from a heavily pro-Chavez site... while exluding reliable sources. It's ridiculous. Be Bold. Let's fix this thing. And I'm ready to escalate to dispute resolution if we don't get something sensible here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks! I think I have to wait until my account is four days old, but I can wait. Sdm900 (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I can wait. - Yeah, I bet you can. I'll give you one thing, banned user User:Grundle2600, you're bloody patient. Rd232 ^talk 09:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! What's interesting is that it was indeed me who originally added all of the above criticism, and that this is the very type of so-called "POV" material that got me topic banned, and eventually banned entirely. Even my biggest critics have to admit that if the above type of info is acceptable by Jimbo, then there is a very strong argument for unbanning me, and eliminating my topic bans. Since the very creator of wikipedia thinks that the above info should be included, then there is absolutely no reason for me to be banned, or topic banned. Sdm900 (talk) 09:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo's opinion on content is no more valuable than anyone else's. And in case anyone cares, Grundle's community ban was agreed here. Rd232 ^talk 11:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The only edits that you or anyone else ever cited as justification for banning me were edits where I added reliably sourced information, very similar to the type of reliably sourced information that I posted above about Chavez. The only reason for banning me was to prevent me from adding reliably sourced information that was critical of left-wing political figures, such as Hugo Chavez, Al Gore, and Barack Obama. I was banned for the single and sole purpose of preventing me from adding reliably sourced information that was critical of the political left. I am a Ron Paul fan, but I have never, ever deleted any of the information that is critical of him from his article. I am appalled by his racist newsletter, but I would never try to delete that information from his article. 200cvy (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • Note 200cvy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Grundle2600 [2]. TFD (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

And if anyone reading the above believes it, I've got a bridge to sell them. Grundle2600 is not the first person to ever to agree with their community ban? I'll try to contain my shock. Rd232 ^talk 17:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This is my proposed merger of the positive and negative info. I should point out that I am highly skeptical of the claim by Venezuelanalysis.com that the average food consumption is only 790 calories per person per day. The same source also cites claims of increased food production which are contrary to the claims reported by the BBC, New York Times, and Washington Post:

According to the BBC, in 2003, Chavez started setting strict price controls on food, and these price controls had caused shortages and hoarding. In 2012, the prices controls were still in effect, and the New York Times reported that "shortages of staples like milk, meat and toilet paper are a chronic part of life here." Bloomberg News reported that Chavez's goal of these price controls was "to curb the region’s highest inflation rate by stamping down on what he terms price 'speculation.'"

In January 2008, Chavez ordered the military to seize 750 tons of food that sellers were illegally trying to smuggle across the border to sell for higher prices than what was legal in Venezuela. In February 2009, Chavez ordered the military to temporarily seize control of all the rice processing plants in the country and force them to produce at full capacity, which he claimed they had been avoiding in response to the price caps. In May 2010, Chavez ordered the military to seize 120 tons of food from Empresas Polar, after inconsistencies in reports from the Empresas Polar conglomerate were said to have been detected by authorities.

According to the Washington Post, Chávez has nationalized many large farms. Chávez said of the farmland, "The land is not private. It is the property of the state... The land is for those who work it." Some of the farmland that had been productive while under private ownership is now idle under government ownership, and some of the farm equipment sits gathering dust. As a result, food production has fallen substantially. One farmer, referring to the government officials overseeing the land redistribution, stated, "These people know nothing about agriculture."

According to the BBC, in March 2009, Chavez set minimum production quotas for 12 basic foods that were subject to price controls, including white rice, cooking oil, coffee, sugar, powdered milk, cheese, and tomato sauce. Business leaders and food producers claimed that the government was forcing them to produce this food at a loss.

According to Business Week, Chávez has seized many supermarkets from their owners. Under government ownership, the shelves in these supermarkets are often empty.

According to Huffington Post, 2010, after the government nationalized the port at Puerto Cabello, more than 120,000 tons of food sat rotting at the port.

In May 2010, after price controls caused shortages of beef, at least 40 butchers were arrested and detained on charges of speculation for allegedly driving up their prices, and some of them were held at a military base and later strip searched by police.

According to venezuelanalysis.com, the government runs 19,000 food outlets throughout the country, which employ 37,000 workers and distribute some 8,000 tons of food daily. According to Commerce Minister Richard Canan, “The average [savings] for the basic food bundle (at the Bicentennial markets) is around 30%. There are some products, for example cheese and meat, which reach a savings of 50 to 60% compared with capitalist markets.”

According to venezuelanalysis.com, between 2002 and 2012, soybean production has grown by 858% to 54,420 tons. The production of rice has risen by 84%, reaching close to 1.3 million tons yearly. Milk production has increased by 47%. In January 2012, it was reported that caloric intake of the Venezuelan people had increased by 130% over the past 13 years, reaching 790 kilocalories per person per day.

Sdm900 (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (talk) archived the above discussion, stating "archive. Grow up folks, the text is clearly reliably sourced and accurate no matter who wrote it, it was reverted even when I added it, cut the games, archive to close discussion." The discussion was ongoing. Clearly several editors disagree with her. SandyGeorgia (talk), if you want to argue that one point or another should or should not be included, do so here. Do not merely archive an ongoing discussion because you disagree with someone. --Lacarids (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

In answer to your original question: Wikipedia:Criticism#.22Criticism.22_section. And incidentally, quite a bit of Grundle's material (which constitutes selectively picking newsy factoids, which is not how an encyclopedia article should be written - certainly not a BLP) has been smuggled into the article by people who should know better. Rd232 ^talk 22:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The point is that the article is overly praising and seems to lack an objective look at its subject. For example: "After being mobbed by adoring crowds following his release, Chávez went on a 100 day tour of the country, promoting his Bolivarian cause of social revolution. Now living off a small military pension as well as the donations of his supporters, he continued to financially support his three children and their mother despite divorcing Nancy Colmenares around this period. On his tours around the country, he would meet Marisabel Rodríguez, who would give birth to their daughter shortly before becoming his second wife in 1997." I added the italics to emphasize the type of unencyclopedic praise that persists throughout the entire article. He's a father, right? Should an encyclopedia lavish praise on a divorced father for financially supporting his children?

I can do without a criticism section. I am, however, very concerned that this talk page is periodically blanked. I am even more concerned that someone would delete an ongoing discussion, without even calling for opinions as to whether or not it should be deleted.--Lacarids (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Conversations by banned users are supposed to be deleted or struck out. TFD (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

But according to Lacarids, apparently not archived for a fresh start... so we keep this mess of strikes on the talk page. By the way, why don't you all just deal with the article instead of entertaining one issue furthered for several years by a sock? That the food issue dominates here is silly when there is so much serious hagiography and poorly sourced text to be dealt with. The food issue could easily be summarized in a sentence or two and be done with it. Reverting text repeatedly because it was first added by a sock seems to avoid the point: the article needs neutrality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this an article (in the food section we're talking about) which uses a blog post by Thor Halvorssen Mendoza as a source, and doesn't even bother to attribute it in the reference, never mind the text... Rd232 ^talk 14:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia/FourDeucesTalk--how are new editors supposed to know that previous editors have already reached a consensus regarding whatever issue, when the talk page is blanked? "Conversations by banned users are supposed to be deleted or struck out." I am not a banned user. What is the purpose of having a talk page if the GeorgiaGestapo is going to delete suggestions? Where in Wiki Style policies does it say that one editor can or should delete an ongoing conversation on a talk page? If you say that SDM900 is a sockpuppet for a banned user, I'll trust you. But don't delet my contributions for no reason. --Lacarids (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Lacarids, SandyGeorgia surely agrees with you that there's not enough critical content. Because of the hijacking of your thread by a banned user, it would have been better to start a new thread about what you want to see done, than to unarchive. Even at this point, if you're interested in discussing this further, it's probably best to start a new section and try again. Rd232 ^talk 16:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

What he said. But your posts weren't deleted-- a disrupted section full of strikes was archived so you could start over. And please drop the GeorgiaGestapo business; it's unhelpful and we have something here called avoid personalizing issues. On the banned Grundle socks, some editors believe that anything from banned users and their socks should be deleted per WP:DENY; it may be a policy or guideline or something somewhere, but I believe we'd be better to just deal with the content matter. Anyway, when folks are trying to be helpful so you can get your point across, sarcasm in return isn't a good thing. Reading talk archives when working on controversial topics is always a good place to start: this article has been POV for at least six years, so I suggest you might want to spend some time reviewing archives to understand the history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Lacarids, now that you've been cleared by CU, would you be amenable to archiving this section for a fresh start? On this talk page, care has to be taken that socks don't dominate discussion (an issue which might be resolved by once and for all dealing with the extreme POV and hagiography here, not the least of which is the food issue). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Cancer type?

According to http://news.yahoo.com/report--chavez-s-cancer-has--entered-the-end-stage-.html today on Yahoo, Dan Rather reports that Hugo Chavez has metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma in its final stages and supposes that he may not live to see the election results .... should this be put in the cancer section, since there are no others corroborating it, and may only be a published rumor?

Ll1324 (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a reliable source, so you can certainly include it, I believe. I'd have to double check the BLP regs to make sure, though. JoelWhy? talk 18:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Dan Rather in fact did not report that Chavez has that condition, but that he was told this by a source he trusts. Typically news stories must be confirmed independently before reporters present them as facts. Since the story has only appeared in one source, it would seem wrong to include it, although if it receives greater coverage it may become worthy of inclusion. TFD (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. If there's any validity to this report, I have no doubt we'll hear it from additional sources in the near future. JoelWhy? talk 18:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a commentary of the same thing by Roberto Carlos Olivares at www.lanuevanacion.com/articles.aspx?art=2028 (it is in Spanish) but would that qualify as a reliable source. There are a couple more articles here and there on a Google search. Ll1324 (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Commentaries are not reliable sources for biographies of living persons. TFD (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hah! Most of the reports of Rhabdomyosarcoma in English are quoting this same report from Dan Rather. Looks like we'll have to wait for this to come from some other side. Ll1324 (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

Proposed paragraph to start the introduction I propose that the following paragraph be used at the beginning of the introduction What do other editors think of my proposal? Hugo Chavez is a communist dictator and President of Venezuela. He has set strict price controls on food, which have caused shortages and hoarding. He has used the military to seize food from private owners, and has had butchers arrested, held at a military base, and strip searched for running out of beef. He shut down a TV station that criticized him, and placed a 15% "luxury tax" on imported toilet paper.After Chavez seized farmland from farmers, food production fell substantially, and Chavez stated, “The land is not private. It is the property of the state.” Chavez has seized many supermarkets from their owners, and under government ownership, the shelves in these supermarkets are often empty. Chavez’s mismanagement of the nationalized oil industry is so severe that the country has actually had to import gasoline, despite having some of the largest oil reserves in the world. Chavez’s nationalizations and price controls have also caused severe damage to the steel, cement , construction, and electric industries. Chavez has also caused a brain drain, where many of the most intelligent and well educated people have fled the country. Vivid4982cover (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Note Vivid4982cover has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Grundle2600 [3]. TFD (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC) I think they will love it at conservapedia. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Food section

We need to add that these numbers were provided by the Chavez administration because it clearly is disputed. The current administration claims milk production has increased by nearly 50%, and yet there were no shortages of milk prior to his taking office. Simply stating "official reports" does not provide sufficient context to the reader.JoelWhy (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. The Chavez administration is the source of official reports in Venezuela. In any case you cannot simply lump all government branches under the label "the Chavez administration" - that if anything shows tendentious lack of context for the reader. Then state which branch of government comes from and if it is contested provide a source for that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have done some work to neutralize the food section and provide more context. I have made it more clear that the food issue is an important part of Chavez political platform both as a part of his actual political strategy to lower inequality in access to basic nutrition and as a populist public relations platform. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Research and Markets claims that milk production increased by 50%,[4] while the International Dairy Federation provides supporting statistics on page 171 of their bulletin.[5] Do you have any different estimates?

While the estimates may baffle you, bear in mind that there was a huge reduction in milk production in the 1990s, and milk production has increased in some other Latin American countries as well. There have also been increased consumption, inefficiencies in distribution and of course price controls.

TFD (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea who Research & Markets is, nor do I know where they got this information (and I'm certainly not spending 770 Euros to find out.) As for the World Dairy Situation report, it indicates that there's been a small (5.5%) increase in production between 2000 and 2009, and a slightly larger increase in imports (8.8%). First of all, the production increase number appears to directly contradict the claims made by the Chavez administration (yes, shocking, I know...) Further, we have substantial evidence of shortages throughout the country for things like milk.JoelWhy (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I should also add that we don't know how the World Dairy Situation report got its numbers either.JoelWhy (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't ned to know that. Just like we don't need to know ho the "Chavez regime" got theirs. The question is whether they are considered a reliable and signiicant source or not. "Research and Markets" is (according to their on website of course) "World's largest and most respected Market Research resource. Searchable database of market research reports incorporating all niche and top industries.". It is difficult to see what reason they might have to inflate the volume of the Venezuelan milk production. Again do you have a source that contradicts these numbers? The R&M report describes how it is possible to have milk shortages in combination with increasing production figures. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

We have no reason to view this random website as a reliable source, so we do need to know where the figures come from (as it could, perhaps, lead us to a reliable source.) Do I have numbers which contradict this? I have figures from 2009 showing a 5.5% increase over the course of a decade and numerous sources showing shortages. So far, no reliable sources have been presented which contradict this assertion.JoelWhy (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It is clearly no more of a "random website" than the sensationalist news sources you built your section on (cherry picking the most atrocious information). And no we don't need to second guess sources that would be OR. Noone is contradicting that there are milk shortages - the Market and Research report ascribes that to an explosion in demand, exlosion in production costs which combined with the pricing system which has meant and increased reliance on imports. The existence of scarcity is not contradictory to an increase in production. The 1999 - 2009 figures do not contradict the source that says that milk production rose by 50% in 2010 due to increased government expenditure exsctly in response to shortages. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Sensationalist news sources?!? I used CNN and the New York Times. But, there must be a dozen equally reliable sources with the same information. To claim that "Research and Markets" is an RS based on...what exactly? The claims made about itself on its own website? It's just ludicrous. I've cited to reputable news cites. If you're not happy about that, feel free to try to change the Wiki standards for determining reliable sources. And, claiming that what I've added is cherry picked is utter b.s.JoelWhy (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I retract my comment on cherry picking because I do understand that you focused on the negative information in order to neutralize a perceived positive bias. But you did leave out all of the information from the news sources that could be seen as mitigating or explaining chavez policies - for example the establishment of cheap food markets while expropriating private supermarkets. Again I do understand that you saw that information on the food crisis was missing and decided to add it which was reasonable. However we should strive for more than that - namely we should strive to both sho what is happening (shortages, expropriations, cheap food markets) and then explain how it fits into Chavez political strategies and the historical and economic context. I hope you also understand that hile I am currently adding "positive information" about Chavez I am not pro-Chavez, just like I don't assume that you have an anti-chavez bias but simply as reacting to a discrepancy between the article's content and the sources available (leaving out shortages etc.). ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I agree that going into the details makes sense. Clearly, Chavez isn't solely to blame for things like the spike in crime and food shortages. But, the page has been sanitized to credit Chavez for all of Venezuela's successes, and pardoned for any perceived failures. It does make it hard to feel motivated to add information that may mitigate the damage done to Chavez by certain information, especially since there is a history on this page of taking such information to pervert it into propaganda. But, I thank you for your efforts in improving the page in an NPOV manner.JoelWhy (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have made more edits to the section in attempt to provide more bacground an actual understanding of the political reasoning behind Chavez controversial moves. The section as written as a laundry list of crimes against the free market juxtaposed with a framing that went "chavez says that X but...". This is obviously not Neutral. I have now put the eents into their logical relation: expropriations is a link in the strategy to increase domestic production in response to shortages. Price ceilings is a part of the strategy to make the basic food basket available to all income brackets. Price ceiling has the effect of making it difficult to import goods while simultaneously increasing the demand - causing shortages that can then only be handled by increasing domestic production by all means necessary. A vicious circle. The reader needs to actually understand the mechanisms not just read a list of Chavez strange communist antics.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I believe that reads much better than previously.JoelWhy (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

From what I can gather, the '50% increase in production' number comes from the government. see here, and for anyone unfamiliar w/ Venezuela Analysis, it's to Chavez what FoxNews is to the Republican Party.) I suspect that's where Research and Markets pulled this information from.JoelWhy (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The World Dairy situtation report shows that production increased from 1,415,000 tonnes in 2000 to 2,220,000 in 2009, which is an increase of 57%. The "small increase in production" of 5.1% is an annual rate. If a growth rate of 5% is maintained over 10 years that amounts to a 50% increase. The IDF is a reliable source and its US members include the USDA, the FDA, Cargill, Kraft Foods, several universities and other non-pro-Chavez groups.[6] Incidentally Fox News is a reliable source for news as I have repeatedly argued at RSN. TFD (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, I see what you're saying now. Let me go back and take a look. As for FoxNews, it does meet RS criteria, although is always a suspect source. But, my analogy was actually not a good one -- VA is far worse than FOX.JoelWhy (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

World diary report also shows that the number of dairy cows remained essentially unchanged (slightly lower in fact) in the period, making socialist cows over 50% more productive than evil capitalist cows! This is not something we can use in the article, but enough for the claim to warrant some extra scrutiny, that's for sure. The change is even more pronounced in Ecuador. Did Venezuela and Ecuador make a shift in the breed of milk cows during the period or changed their diet or something? Looking at other countries, Germany had a similar 10% drop in the number of cows, but their milk production was essentially unchanged. On the other hand, an average German cow produced 6,8 tons of milk per year, compared to 1,8 tons of an average Venezuelan cow ... and that's after the apparent increase in production. I suspect the difference in milk production isn't actually a difference in production, but rather a larger portion of Venezuelan production being accounted for, or more being used for dairy production (fewer calf fed with their mothers' milk, more to feed people). That would explain inconsistencies, but it's just a theory. Does anyone know where to look for evidence on any of this stuff? 89.142.168.64 (talk) 07:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

VA is worse than Fox? Where do you come up with this stuff? VA is accepted as a source in academia and indexed by Google Scholar, while there are academic studies about the problems with Fox (Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Tests_of_knowledge_of_Fox_viewers). Bottom line: VA must make mistakes like any news source, but no-one who vilifies it has ever even bothered to come up with one to support the claim that it's an unreliable source. Rd232 ^talk 12:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

VA is an overtly pro-Chavez paper. The fact that you continuously appear incapable of distinguishing objective reporting from hyper-partisan cheer-leading is a primary reason we cannot move forward with this article. This isn't a matter of "mistakes," it's a matter of perspective. Every article they publish appears to keep in mind "how can we frame this so that it helps Chavez." As they say, 'tell the truth, but tell it slant.'JoelWhy (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Even if what you say is true (and it's not a claim that's worth debating in general, you would need to analyse specific VA pieces to show problems), it's irrelevant. WP:NPOV doesn't apply to sources, it applies to the Wikipedia article. If the source is reliable for what it says (and the evidence says VA is), then it doesn't matter if it leaves things out of specific pieces or selects what to cover in ways others disagree with. And the more you insist that it's a Chavez mouthpiece, the more you're forced to concede that NPOV requires us to include it to give due WP:WEIGHT to that highly relevant point of view. Rd232 ^talk 13:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

VA is included in the article and will continue to be, along ith other notable sources and their viewpoints. Can we discuss how to improve the article now?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

My problem is much more about how it is used than whether it is used. I'm fine with using it for opinion. But, it's more editorial than news. When used to express how the Chavez administration feels about something, I see no problem with its use. Beyond that, however, it has no place here.JoelWhy (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Media bias today is mostly shown by the stories chosen rather than using different facts. If a fact in VA or FNC is wrong then we can find a source that presents the correct fact. If no other source mentions a fact, then we can say it is too trivial to mention in this article although other articles about lesser-known people may not require that standard. One can present the facts about food in ways that make Chavez look good or bad. Neutrality requires that the article "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". We must establish that before the article can be neutral. TFD (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. In any case there is no reason that VA should be treated differently from other official government news sources. When the US department of state makes press releases we don't write "the Obama regime claims to have X but Y" we just write that this is the official story and if there are notable sources questioning the information then we add those too.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That's just it. VA is supposed to be an independent newspaper, not a government-controlled entity.JoelWhy (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Lots of ostensibly independent newspapers are in fact dependent on some interest. Publicly sponsored media isn't something necessarily odious.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not a "government-controlled entity" - it is an independent non-profit (see Venezuelanalysis.com). Rd232 ^talk 17:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

My point exactly. They're supposed to be independent, but Maunus argues in favor on inclusion of the source and that "VA should be treated differently from other official government news sources." It appears Maunus was under the impression this was a government controlled newspaper, and I can't blame him given how hyperpartisan it is.JoelWhy (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Well my knowledge of the status of VA is based on your previous arguments so please don't take that as evidence of anything. I am arguing here specifically about the information cited in the food section which is a direct quote from the minister responsible for that area. She is certainly the official voice of the government whether or not the news source is supported by the state or not. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

What I don't get is how come you can bicker on whether or not Venezuelanaysis is independent and NPOV or not, and even quote the Wiki article on it claiming it is independent, and ignore parts like these: [i]Wilpert, a founder and editor, describes the website as "mostly pro-Chavez"[/i]. It's right there in the Wiki article, among other things that clearly demonstrate the slant already evident on the site. Guys and girs, their founder and main editor openly declared the web site as "pro-Chavez", I suggest we can take his word for it. It's not a question of whether VA should be balanced out by other sources, but which sources would be best for that task, or perhaps whether VA should be used in the article at all. I would suggest it is to be eliminated as a source completely, but it's not up to me. Now can we move on to something more relevant, [i]please[/i]? 89.142.168.64 (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

This conversation is no longer productive because it has already been established that the specific facts questioned at the beginning of the discusscion thread which were sourced to VA can be verified with other sources. TFD (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

If you ask me you should use those other sources whenever possible. The fact VA is quoted 10 times in the article only justifies criticism that it's POV. I don't know what the objective truth is, I doubt anyone does with all the conflicting information and bias everywhere, but quoting a blatant propaganda rag ten times is simply not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. 89.143.143.42 (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I count 2 out of 354 footnotes sourced to VA (244 and 286). The passage that 286 supports is triple-sourced, supported by footnotes 284, 285 and 286. If VA is a blatant propaganda rag, it would still qualify as a reliable sources in some cases, per WP:SPS. You need to provide specific examples of where the source is misused. TFD (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Footnotes 208, 225, 227, 242, 253, 254, 262, 272, 298 and 304 are sourced to Venezuelanalysis, that's ten of them. Use browser search function, it's easier. Since VA is a blatant propaganda rag it shouldn't be used as a source at all, even if it's accurate. This is because anyone reading after you that does some research will find the information suspect (for good reason too) and will have to seek out those sources anyway, plus if you're sure the information is accurate you had to find them yourself in the first place, so there is no reason not to cite those instead of VA.86.61.51.194 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the fact that you don't like VA as a source is not enough grounds to exclude its use. That's not how our sourcing policy works. If you think it is orth it you could make a discussion of VA at the reliable sources notice board. There people will also ask you "reliable in relation to what", since it is basic policy that a source's reliability is determined in relation to the fact it is used to support, not by whether editors agree or disagree with the political leanings of its author.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see how you could read the former paragraph and come to a conclusion it's all because "I don't like VA". As for the reliability you mention, VA openly supports Chavez. It's quite obvious it shouldn't be used in an article about Chavez if there is an alternative, precisely because of relations you mention. If it makes you feel better I don't think an openly anti-Chavez site should be used either, if there is an alternative.89.142.25.196 (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

In your first example (which is now 210), VA is used as a source for a statement by Chavez, which does not appear to violated rs. Can you provide an example of where the source is misused? TFD (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Not that my criticism of using VA has anything to do with abusing sources, but a case of source abuse is present in this very example you quoted. The VA cite has several paragraphs about Jozeph Stiglitz praising Chavez and his policy (which may or may not be accurate, I don't know), with the quote for which this is in the article being barely mentioned. The Guardian article on the same issue is a lot better, since it talks about the subject and this very quote, with relative little mention of other issues. Why would you choose VA article over the Guardian article, or any other, there are plenty?89.142.25.196 (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is anyone spending any time on milk production stats in Venezuela when everyone in Venezuela drinks powdered milk anyway (Canprolac etc) since milk distribution there (tropical climate) leads to rotten lousy tasting milk? There are more important issues that need to be addressed here ... this food business is a distraction from the serious issues in the article. Honestly why is Venezuelanalysis focusing on milk ... I'm on vacation and haven't read the article, but sounds like a straw man to me. How about something that matters in Venezuela like harina pan ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

We are only discussing this minor point because an editor challenged the reliability of VA in relation to milk production. Increased milk production is not figure prominently in the section on food. I don't know what you base your statement that VA "focuses on milk" - VA mentioned an increased milk roduction in one article because the minister made a statement about it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I skipped through the section a bit, and found another case why VA should be excluded. It's in the part about increased caloric intake, where it claims caloric intake has increased by 130%, the cited VA article additionally states it is now at 790 kcal/day. If you just lie on a bed in a warm room and don't move at all all day, you will still use 1200 kcal/day (on average) to stay alive. However, VA is claiming that Venezuelans used to live on about 340 kcal/day, which is comparable to the amount of food available to inmates in Nazi extermination camps ... and not much else. Under the current conditions (after this huge improvement), Venezuela would still face a major famine that would eradication roughly 40% of it's population within a year or so. VA really reads more like KCNA than anything else, it offers ridiculous stories of success that are often inherently impossible due to obvious errors in the article itself.89.142.168.64 (talk) 05:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I decided to write again on that "130% increase" in caloric intake. Frankly, it's a ludicrous claim, an increase of 130% is enough to go from Somalia level of food availability (1500 kcal/day) to well over the level consumed in the US, and obviously way over what can still be considered healthy (~2200 kcal/day, tops). I'm quite sure that an average Venezuelan had better access to food 13 years ago than an average Somali, which makes the claim even more impossible. If Wikipedia is to be a serious encyclopaedia it must necessarily prune such claims, sourced or no, and eliminate such ridiculous sources. Evidence, not eminence people! Just because it's written somewhere it doesn't make it possible, let alone true.89.142.168.64 (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Typos and other errors are not a reason to impeach the reliability of a source, otherwise The Grauniad would be excluded. In this case I would not use that article. Incidentally, the article makes no claims at all about food consumption, just reports what an official says. TFD (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The VA source [7] was a translation of this, which seems to have slightly garbled an interview Di Luca gave, losing a 2 to turn 2790 calories into 790. I suppose it's not impossible the 130% figure is actually correct, but I wouldn't use it without independent corroboration. Hence this edit. Rd232 ^talk 20:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No, the 130% figure is impossible, as illustrated in the above paragraph. If Venezuelan food intake increased by 130% to 2790 kcal/day, it was well below that of Somalia before the increase. Barring evidence of a famine prior to his assumption of power in Venezuela the number must necessarily be considered bunk. My guess is that it increased by 30%, to 130% of what it used to be, but that's not what the source says and this is guesswork.89.142.168.64 (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is probably 30%. But the article does not say that food intake increased by 130%, merely that an official said that. Do you understand the difference between reporting what someone said and reporting what they said as a fact? Do you for example understand the differnce between saying that Bush claimed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and our saying that such weapons existed? TFD (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The title of the article is "Venezuelan Diet Sees 130% Increase in Calory Intake", and cites "official data" in the body. As I have shown either this is a mistranslation (though the source cited by VA appears to makes the same claim), or the unnamed "official data" is dead wrong and VA didn't pick that up. Either makes VA an unreliable source at best. Couple that with their open pro-Chavez bias, and you have two very good reasons to exclude it from the sources. Would you use the Sun as a source about Iraq war? I wouldn't.89.142.168.64 (talk) 07:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources sometimes are in error and report statements by officials that are in error. That does not mean that the source is not reliable. For example the NYT reported the (I hope you know it is false) claim that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. That does not mean that we reject the NYT as a reliable source. TFD (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Look, I tried to avoid this spinning in the wrong direction, but you keep pushing it. There is absolutely no doubt that Saddam had had WMDs and that some were unaccounted for. Recognizing this, it's no error in judgment to report on reports that he had WMDs, even though he disposed of them in secret in the meantime. It is, however, a major error in judgment to report on something as blatantly false as a statement that Venezuela saw an 130% increase in average calorie intake, which would turn Venezuelan food problem roughly from "famine" to "obesity", even though they didn't even start at famine. Not every mistake or error is equal in weight, not by a long shot. Try reading KCNA, I find it good entertainment and it's also useful to find out how an unreliable news outlet looks like. I find it remarkably similar to VA in many respects. Both are utterly incomparable to NYT or any number of other reputable news sources.89.142.168.64 (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I looked up Venezuela kcalorie/day data in FAOSTAT: low points are 2304 in 1997 and 2254 in 2002. I've also watched the VTV interview source, which clarifies that 130% is a reference to a target level, not an increase. According to the video, calorie intake is now 130% (actually 128%, from the graph shown in the video) of some sort of FAO target level. Rd232 ^talk 10:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It would seem that this VA report is completely false, then. Thank you.89.142.168.64 (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it is an accurate translation of a source which made two transcription errors from an interview. Rd232 ^talk 11:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The information contained therein is false. It may be due to simple incompetence on their behalf, I'll grant you that, but it's still false, and it's still a kind of mistake that causes a source to loose a lot of credibility. They didn't double-check it, they didn't even think if it was possible, they just parroted whatever was said because they liked what was said. What makes you think their other reports don't contain comparable errors? Aren't editors supposed to be neutral when it comes to content?89.142.168.64 (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The VTV claim is only obviously wrong if you know a bit about food requirements. There is no reason to expect a VA translator to have such knowledge, and therefore to pick up the error. These sorts of mistakes happen every day when mainstream newspapers turn corporate press releases into copy (and by some estimates, a large majority of business-related news is based directly or indirectly on corporate press releases). It's not good, but that's how it is. Rd232 ^talk 13:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I'll grant you the benefit of doubt, it may be just because VA has incompetent editor(s) that will publish anything that reflects well on their Hero. That's a good enough reason to exclude it as a source.95.176.191.46 (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't need your benefit of the doubt, I need you to hear what I'm saying. VA here was publishing a translation of a news piece that had errors in it. This is no different from mainstream papers publishing wire service pieces (AP, Reuters, et al) with errors in them, which happens often enough. We don't expect the papers using wire copy to take the blame for wire service errors either. In addition, the correction of the error still leaves plenty of good news to report, which should put to bed your insinuation that somewhere along the line the error was deliberately introduced or ignored. In short: shit happens. Let it go. Rd232 ^talk 16:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I do hear what you're saying, and I'm not buying the excuse.95.176.191.46 (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to change what's in the article, please provide a reliable source. End of story. JoelWhy? talk 13:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I already did. ... maybe it's time to bring this long and messy discussion to a close. Rd232 ^talk 13:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, nice, thanks! JoelWhy? talk 13:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring to remove all Venezuelanalysis sourcing

User:Swanbryan is editwarring to

• remove all footnotes to Venezuelanalysis
• leave text unsourced that was previously sourced to Venezuelanalysis
• break quotes and references
• remove a sentence sourced to UNESCO.

Can we please talk about this? Rd232 ^talk 20:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

User repeatedly uses the word "distended" in edit summaries in relation to citations, which I don't understand. Perhaps he'd like to explain. Rd232 ^talk 21:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: the user (since renamed to User:Chamoquemas) has been indefinitely blocked, along with several socks. Rd232 ^talk 00:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Leftist used to describe British Politician

"The leftist Mayor of London Ken Livingstone welcomed him, describing him as "the best news out of Latin America in many years" The above line should be changed to Labour or left wing since leftist is a US term and not appropriate when used to refer to a British politician on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.36.44.4 (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• The term "Leftist" is NOT American. Members of the Greens Party of Australia routinely refer to themselves as "Leftists" - and I've never heard it used as an insult, in Australia, at least. 124.168.1.162 (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I concur with the above; the term "leftist" is used over here in the United Kingdom. Perhaps it does have its origins in the Untied States granted, but that does not mean it is solely used over there (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC))

The source says Chavez will "meet left-wing Labour MPs and trade union officials and hold a joint news conference with Livingstone at City Hall".[8] It would probably be better to get a source that explains how the left-wing of the Labour Party views Chavez. TFD (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Attempt to buy editor to push POV

i.e. I see this sort of thing from time to time, once interacted with a lawyer in LA trying to do something for his clients, not as egregious as this. Maybe related to current tagging. He'll probably pull it if he reads this so I'v posted a copy here. Lycurgus (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It's obviously wrong to pay someone to edit a Wikipedia article to his liking, anyone taking the suggestion should be banned from editing Wikipedia ... but it's hardly a case of pushing a POV. I was in luck to view the article in between (without viewing the pain in the nether regions editing history) and it seemed a lot more balanced and presented both sides: subsidized food both helps the poor and buys votes for Chavez, saying otherwise is indeed POV. To sum up: if the editwar started for $30, someone should be banned, but the changes should stay.89.142.168.64 (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, only involved from the ad, the article I may have had a mnor edit, not recently. As far as "balanced" is concerned, that's crap. See View from Nowhere. It's mainly associated with the infotainment industry in the U.S. doesn't correspond to WP:NPOV at all. That kind of "balanced" is a gross corruption of the wiki and if this isn't a violation of NPOV I don't know what is. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

There's actually no rule against paying someone to edit Wiki. What matters is the content. However, there is a rule against edit warring, and it's disruptive to made enormous edits to an article without discussing it on the Talk page first. I agree that VA is clearly a pro-Chavez virtual fish wrap, but unilaterally deciding to delete all references to the newspaper is not the way to go. JoelWhy? talk 12:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

While there may not be an explicit rule against paying someone to edit, it's implicit in Wp:COI and you know, common sense. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it's definitely a COI. But, there's no prohibition against COI editing, either. It's merely "discouraged." In any case, if someone is able to fix this page from the current NPOV problems, he deserves $30! JoelWhy? talk

Really? Where do I send my invoice for the service I've rendered over the last 6 years? 72.228.189.184 (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

To whomever advertised would pay you for it. If no one did you're out of luck, obviously.89.142.168.64 (talk) 05:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: according to User:Mesoderm, the person behind the ad is the person behind the User:Chamoquemas account. That account (and several socks) have been indefinitely blocked. It remains to be seen whether there'll be any more of this misguided activity. Rd232 ^talk 23:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

From what I've seen over the past 3 years here, RD232, you've gotten into no less than three major edit wars since 2009 on this article alone. If you think the community is alright with twenty-nine link-backs to stories derived and cited from their state run media group, you are grossly mistaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JessicaSkitka (talk • contribs) 23:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note JessicaSkitka has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Chamoquemas [9]. TFD (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Abuse(s) of power

I think that the article needs a section about the (alledged?) abuses of power, perhaps under foreign policy, titled "Controversies" or similar. Something like this:
---

Controversies

There are accounts of Hugo Chavez abusing some of his presidential powers towards his own political gain. Examples range from illegally using the National Blanket Broadcasts for presidential campaigns to undermining independence of the juridical authority to donating a government-funded house to his three-millionth twitter follower .
---

It's a start at least, there are other comparable issues, but I'm new at this. Thoughts? 89.142.168.64 (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It's better to integrate "controversy" throughout the whole article rather than trying to make a "Controversy" section. Think about how Barack Obama is structured WhisperToMe (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I would tend to agree on that, but it would require significant reworking of most sections.89.142.168.64 (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The broadcast story is from a blog and therefore not a reliable source. The twitter story only says that a "government critic" criticized Chavez on his blog. Neither appear to be significant. The accusation of "undermining independence of the juridicial authority" is of course important and is already covered by an entire paragraph in the "Human rights" section. Note that your source is about the Afiuni case, which is discussed in the section. TFD (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I would say a blog on CNN that includes direct footage of allegations beats VA any day of the week, yet VA is still cited nine times. That aside, I found a comparable Al-Jazeera English report on Youtube , would that do as a corroboration? Undermining of juridical independence is mentioned, true, and indeed with this very example (my bad). It's hardly the entire story though, I'll get back on that later. As for the Twitter story, it's significant because you'll be hard pressed to get a more clear and obvious case of arbitrarily spending state money for his own political gain anywhere in the world. The amount of money wasted is trivial, the issue is not.89.142.168.64 (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The al Jazeera "report" is actually a discussion, not a news report. We do not have a source that Chavez "abused his presidential powers" by awarding the house, only a comment from an opponent who is a columnist for The Freeman. The story itself has received no coverage beyond the AP report. Also, please read WP:BLPSPS: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject". That means all facts we report must be sourced to news reports. While we may report opinions of individuals published in their blogs, provided we supply inline citation, we need to ensure that there is balance in the views presented. That is hard to when a story is so obscure that only one person has commented. TFD (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

We do know we abused his power, we just don't have a news report that would say that. Well, we do, but it's not a real news report (or something). Sadly primary research isn't allowed as a source, I'll see if I can find something else on that twitter story, but yeah it's somewhat obscure and it'll be hard. I'll rather try to find something that will pass the rules on presidential broadcasts. Is citing the people in Al-Jazeera discussion out of the question?89.142.168.64 (talk) 06:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I checked this out and I found plenty of other instances of blatant severe power abuse, but none that would pass as a "news organization". Does video evidence count as a source? One thing is sure though, the next election can't be democratic. Hugo gave a 3-hour speech to the military claiming, among other things, Venezuela will loose independence if opposition wins . This certainly deserves a mention somewhere. Perhaps we could make a section about 2012 election? There is plenty of stink there already, and the campaign hasn't even officially started yet. Given the lack of coverage of such issues in the article someone reading it might come to a mistaken conclusion the whole process was democratic and fair. 89.142.168.64 (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If it's not explicitly stated as such, we cannot. WP:OR states that we cannot say that he committed an "abuse of power" unless a secondary source says so. For instance if someone writes a book about Chavez, and John Smith, the author says "This is an abuse of power" we can say "John Smith says that X was an abuse of power on Chavez's part." WhisperToMe (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but anything self-published isn't recognized as a reliable source and it must be attributable to someone, so primary sources are often problematic. As I recall I found videos of Chavez doing what what would be severe power abuse, making edicts and such, but without anyone actually saying it was power abuse it's not recognized as a source. In some cases it was a blog, with evidence and all, but again, self-published and thus not a news source. I suspect I could get more if I knew some Spanish, but alas, I don't. Government media suppression is pretty severe as well, which makes criticism harder to come by. I decided to just wait until after the elections at least, see what comes of that. The world won't end if a Wikipedia article remains seriously flawed for a few more weeks or months. 89.142.168.64 (talk) 05:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"Chávez has threatened to wage a civil war if defeated" - not true

Let us look at the Wikipedia article:

Chávez has threatened to wage a civil war if defeated.[224]

If you look att reference you find this quote attributed to Chávez:

"If a right-wing' presidential candidate takes office, it would mean an end to the social reforms, which were carried out during 14 years of my rule, and spark a civil war in the country," Chavez said.

So there is no proof in the reference that "Chávez has threatened to wage a civil war if defeated". This needs to be fixed.

--IRISZOOM (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I changed it.[10] TFD (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It needs further changing, for grammar reasons:

Chávez has warned that if a right-wing president takes office, it would mean an end of social reforms lead to civil war.

should read at least

Chávez has warned that if a right-wing president takes office, it would mean an end of social reforms and lead into civil war.

Better yet, use the full quote: Chavez warned: "If a right-wing' presidential candidate takes office, it would mean an end to the social reforms, which were carried out during 14 years of my rule, and spark a civil war in the country," 89.142.168.64 (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Crime and punishment section

Crime and punishment section needs updating. 2010 an 2011 both broke records on violence, and 2012 is looking to be even worse. I would add the following paragraph, just above the sentence where some blame is laid on Colombian guerrilla:. "Despite these efforts, the violence increased, ."89.142.168.64 (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Removing POV template?

Per Template:POV, the POV banner should be used only when there is an active discussion on a POV issue in the article; "This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article". This one appears to be ten months old and have no active discussion. Would someone please remove it, or is it all right if I do so myself? Khazar2 (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I've boldly removed the template per the above. Feel free to revert me, however, if it seems to anyone that I've done so in error. Khazar2 (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of the press

Reading that subsection, i stumbled over that: "Freedom House lists Venezuela's press as being "Not Free" in its 2011 Map of Press Freedom, noting that "[t]he gradual erosion of press freedom in Venezuela continued in 2010."[298] Reporters Without Borders has criticized the Chávez administration for "steadily silencing its critics".[299] In the group's 2009 Press Freedom Index, Reporters Without Borders noted that "Venezuela is now among the region’s worst press freedom offenders."[299]"

Academics have reported Freedom House as being an US foreign policy tool (basically, for them, "democracy" is measured by the adhesion to neo-liberal policies and US military interests) You can see that in the dedicated article, in free medias and even on the governemental french academic database(!), here: http://www.persee.fr/articleAsPDF/receo_0338-0599_2005_num_36_2_1712/article_receo_0338-0599_2005_num_36_2_1712.pdf

Let's talk about Reporters Without Borders now: They have, among others, links with right-wing cubans in exile in Miami, so they can't really be pro-Chavez. This is stated in the dedicated article, but i can also find other sources if someone tries to argue.

I don't have infos about Human Right Watch, so i won't touch it, but i'm betting 200$ that they're also linked to US interests, given their aggressive tone towards left-wing south american countries.

So of course, someone has to remove the lines on US-driven organisations, because the official US position on Chavez is already given in the article. Failure to comply will be treated as a NPOV breach (giving a country's position multiple times through umbrella organizations) and will be reported to competent authorities.

Best regards, propagandists! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.200.131.160 (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Freedom House has its critics, but is also respected by many academics, and its ratings generally correlate with independently created freedom indexes. Human Rights Watch and Reporters Without Borders are also widely cited and respected organizations, even if, as you note, not without their critics. (I'll happily take that $200 off your hands, though). Their inclusion seems reasonable to me.

Please also note that a cornerstone policy at Wikipedia is to accept good faith; opening a discussion by calling other editors "propagandists" doesn't help persuade anyone. (In fact, it usually does the opposite.) -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Which academists? Give names, i'm ready. Those academists have to be non-US citizens, and non-affiliated to anything right-wing: Just to a university. We're gonna laught, you'll see. Note that i already gave one. Cited? I won't make a godwin but being cited does not make you competent, it makes you media-friendly, and this is not always good for an "encyclopedia".

Respected? "Freedom house", respected? Are you fucking with me? Give names, articles, i'm listening. The critic here is NPOV breach : If you want to use that kind of organisations and their bullshit analysis "everyone left-wing is a dictator", you can, but ONLY if you do the same with organisations from the other side. Otherwise you're just piling up the same opinion.

Freedom indexes? Everyone knows that "freedom" is a political term which varies from ideology to ideology. Economic freedom? Democratic freedom? Academic freedom? Read the wikipedia articles on the organisations that i criticize. Do they seem "neutral" to you? Really? Even on wikipedia, the most conformist website on earth (and rightly so: it's an encyclopedia), they're vilified. Understand that "Good Faith" doesn't protect from being wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.36.114.22 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 19 September 2012‎

Note that we are only reporting what those groups have said not endorsing them. Readers may follow the piped links if they want to know more about those organizations. Whether or not they are accurate, they are notable organizations. It would helpful if you could provide an academic article that weighs the different opinions and explains which are most widely accepted. TFD (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Protect this

Most venezuelians will rage at this. I'd sugest protecting it. As in fully protected. 3|9|3|0|K (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

2012 = Third or Fourth term?

The last sentence of the lead now gives the impression that Chávez is elected for the third time in 2012, while the structure of the article (and content) give the impression he is serving his fourth term. Perhaps someone can clarify this.--Gulpen (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

He has won four times: 1998, 2000, 2006 and 2012. JRSP (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

A 0 is missing from "the Mercal network, which has 16,600 outlets and 85,00 employees" under the Food section, it should be 85,000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.12.137 (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. TFD (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Questionable Redirect

Hi, Is it appropriate that "anti-Chavista" redirects to Hugo Chávez? It seems to me that if someone were searching for the former, they wouldn't find what they were looking for in the latter. I realize that in reality, there is not a Anti-chavista, and maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way, but it seems like it's possible or probable that a chavista created the redirect. --Lacarids (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to the history. If you want to delete it, take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. The creator of the re-direct calls himself an "anti-chavista" on his user page. TFD (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

There are no books by Hannibal available for Chavez to have read. Perhaps the line could read "books by or about" Hannibal, Napoleon & so on. I know I must sound pedantic, but such a small error shook my faith in the whole article. This is my first attempt to contribute to Wiki, so if I´m on the wrong page saying the wrong thing, forgive me please.Adamcochabumba (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)adamcochabumba

Wikipedia is based on verifiablity not truth. In this case a reliable source quoted Chavez as having read those books. Inevitably errors will occur in sources and be copied here and in cases like this, where they are of minor relevance, may remain undetected. Thank you for noticing. TFD (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Antisemitism?

I don't like that the sources for the 'antisemitism' section tacked onto 'Political Philosophy' are strong. They all seem to stem from Israeli newspapers, often lacking any specific information, instead relying on vague opinion and testimony.

I would add a POV tag if I could. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.163.22 (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The article from the Jewish Journal does not say that the cause of the decline in the Jewish population, which began before Chavez came to power, is due to anti-Semitism. The [[[New York Post]] reviews a book that claims part of the reason is anti-Semitism but provides no figures. [11] However it cannot be repeated as a fact. I will therefore remove that sentence. There is nothing wrong with using Israeli sources so long as they meet rs standards. TFD (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The last three paragraphs under the Anti Zionism are really poor.

"According to a report documenting hundreds of antisemitic actions of the police and other government offices, the creation of a newly formed antisemitic rhetoric in government sponsored newspapers and the rise of antisemitic attacks against Jewish people and Jewish organisations, in a country that was totally lacking all these phenomena before Chávez, points to his personal involvement in active antisemitism." First, what is the report? There is no link to any report. Second the sentence doesn't make sense, it is too long, poorly worded and is confusing. Thirdly the use of "points to", as in a causation relationship is highly editorial and suggestive, without any evidence. Also, even if we commonly accept these happenings, there is no reason to suggest a direct link to Chavez.

"For example two attacks to the Jewish school, searching for "weapons of the conspiracy", one in the morning, as k12 age children began their studies, the second during a wedding in one of the school's halls in the evening.[243]"

This sentence is poorly written also, and the source is not exactly sound, there may be better more direct examples to choose from, or corroborations of this source. Again causation theory is really misleading, a surge in anti-semitic activity is not neccessarily tied to the actions of a leader, in fact, often, just the opposite is true. We require more clear, less editorial/oped sources for this page, especially given the nature of the subject.

In the 2008 a synagogue in Caracas was attacked by a mob, with no protection from the police. The Simon Wiesenthal Center claimed this was directly tied to Chávez, citing the article in commentary.[244]

Again the source is not exactly sound contains no corroborating evidence, additional sources should be found for this, and the personal links to Chavez (this is his personal page) are tenuous at best. In 2012 elections Chavez repeated his antisemitic attacks against his primary opponent Henrique Capriles Radonski[245] Paywalled, corroboration required. Unclear.

General confusion between anti-zionism and anti-semitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgjmce (talk • contribs) 00:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

POV

" Fourth Presidential Term: 10 January 2013 – 10 January 2019

On 7 October 2012, Chávez "won" election as president for a fourth time, "defeating" outrageously popular candidate Henrique Capriles, and will serve for six years.[2]" - this is sound a bit POV, because Chávez won election and not "won" and Henrique Capriles were defeat, not "defeat". What is mean by "won" and "defeat"? That election was democratic and fair (UN, EU, Carter Center...).--92.62.226.31 (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Em, no, the election was anything but fair. Here, link to a relevant google search. I think the quotation marks are quite appropriate. Carter Center didn't validate the elections, and neither did UN, nor EU, nor anyone else. There was no external observation whatsoever. Still, the scare quotes could go, they add little to the quality of the article, while opening it up to POV criticism, justified or no. But don't go around saying the elections were fair, unless you intend to insult other peoples' intelligence.86.61.104.183 (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! 92.62.226.31, I have reverted the recent addition that used the term "outrageously". 86.61.104.183, we must try, as an encyclopedia, to remain neutral on the issue. I have added a source that weighs in for both sides. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Military Rank

I noticed that the infobox is missing Chavez' "Lieutenant Colonel" insignia, since a file does not exist for Venezuelan ranks. However, I found the insignia in this Commons image (Bottom left insignia): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/1/19/20090304134808!Rango_Oficiales_Venezuela.jpg I am no good with editing images, but is there anyone with photo experience that would be able to create a PNG file of this image and add it to the article? Cheers, Freebirdthemonk ^Howdy! 23:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Number of terms

In second paragraph, shouldn't it say he was elected to a fourth term in October 2012, rather than a third term? Regards, Chuck Debevec — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.216.102 (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

First - 1998, second - 2000 (because of new constitution), third - 2006 and fourth - 2012.--78.102.90.37 (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Chávez and the Jews

The article contains the following statement which is sourced

On 24 December 2005, Chávez stated that "[t]he world is for all of us, then, but it so happens that a minority, the descendants of the same ones that crucified Christ, the descendants of the same ones that kicked Bolívar out of here and also crucified him in their own way over there in Santa Marta, in Colombia. A minority has taken possession all of the wealth of the world." Accusations of antisemitism have been leveled against Chávez because of these comments.

I believe any thinking person would immediately see that it is the Jews that are meant ("the descendants of the same ones that crucified Christ").

One editor however (without any source) saw fit to qualify that statement: "However, the mention of Bolívar's opponents may make such claims doubtful, due to the lack of a sizable Jewish community in the region at the time".

I removed that statement that ostensibly was added there to "provide balance" but in fact was meant to weaken the claim of antisemitism because

1. there's is no source given for the size of the Jewish community in the region at the time and thus the claim regarding the "lack of a sizable Jewish community in the region at the time" is not backed by evidence
2. the vague statement "may make such claims doubtful" refers to unnamed people who have supposedly cast doubt on the fact that it was the Jews who were refered to but no information and no source is given as to who those people actually were
3. the supposed "neutral" statement which pretends to provide "balance" is completely nonsensical ("the descendants of the same ones that crucified Christ", who are they? the opponents of Chávez crucified Christ? Chávez's opponents are descendants of other Chávez's opponents who crucified Christ and who were not Jews?); it would be like adding "balance" to an article on the geology of the earth by referring to flat-earth or hollow-earth theories.

I'd like your opinion as to this tactic of weakening a statement by pretending to provide balance but without any sources and in fact without any credible chance that the qualification could have any justification or sense nor any chance of being correct. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 16:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have a full transcript, preferrably in Spanish, rather than excerts included in opinion pieces and blogs, so that we could place the comments in context. Unfortunately we do not have any independent analysis and therefore cannot state categorically what he meant. Christ was executed upon sentence by the Roman governor, Chavez alleged that Bolivar was killed by oligarchs, he claims that the U.S. is trying to oust him. The common thread is that he sees them all as oppressive elites. It could be that that is what he meant. However I agree with your removing of the qualification. TFD (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)