Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 1

Untitled
This archive page covers approximately the dates between May. 2004 and Aug. 2004.

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

I believe not enough information is given about Chavez's 1992 coup. Given that it was the event that brought Chavez to the public eye and its major impact on Venezuelan democracy, it is important to develop that section.

I believe that, as it has been pointed out, the article contains several inaccuracies. The phrasing of many sentences is particularly deceitful: they lead to believe that what the pro-government side says is 'absolute truth' while what the anti-government side says is nothing but lies.

The article fails to give a significant picture of why the opposition opposes Chavez (as redundant as it may sound). Only the official government stance is presented: the opposition is entirely made by power-hungry capitalists (and the media they own) supported by the United States who are disgruntled by Chavez's radical economic policies. This argument is just one side of the coin.

Not much information on the constitutional background of the referendum is given. I think it is important to add that info at the start of the referendum section.

And no information on the constitutional background of the Supreme Tribunal is given. Today a new Organic Law of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice was approved by the pro-Chavez majority. Several opposition members of the NA claim that the law is inconstitutional. I haven't read it and honestly I am not too informed about it, so I'll have to do more research.

I am willing and I'll be glad to help in making this article better. Papa Lemming 21:58, 18 May 2004 (VET)

I read the techcentralstation.com article and found it was a very accurate descripiton of what happened in Venezuela since Chavez came to power. I don't see why you call it horrifyingly anti-chavez. The article does not even describe the most awful things Chavez has done in Venezuela. Not even Chavez supporters would deny what the article says. Maybe you say it is horrifying for the same reasons most Venezuelans find the Chavez government horrifying. The only inaccuracy in the article is regarding the signer names "leaked" to a pro-Chavez legislator. The article says the names leaked correspond to the first sign petition drive, but if fact they correspond to the second drive. It was illegal to publish the names before the (also pro-Chavez) electoral council (CNE) authorized it, but there was no problem because the legislator was pro-Chavez. It is irrelevant now because the CNE has published its results (which were the biggest fraud I have ever seen, since they invalidated about 1.4 million valid signatures). The legistlator's site is at http://www.luistascon.com.

Other than that, the article is just slightly outdated because the law that allows the national assembly to increase the number of members of the TSJ by simple majority was passed recently (by simple majority too), despite the constitution stating that this kind f law requires 66% of support in the national assembly.

If you ask a pro-Chavez about the facts stated in the article he would not deny them. In fact, he would consider a very good thing that which you consider horrifying. I would like you to specify which parts of the article you consider horrifying anti-Chavez outright fabrications, because I live here and see no fabrications in the article. [User:Vegetasaiyajin] 15:26, 8 May 2004 (VET)

I began rewriting the section "consolidation of power" because it was horrifyingly anti-Chavez. President Chavez was elected on a platform of wide-reaching political reform, he held a referendum confirming his mandate for it, and then he signed a constitution written by people elected to make it. This was portaryed as just short of a Stalinist coup by the section.

In the course of researching I discovered that it is in fact a direct rip of an article from something called Tech Central Station, a free-market-obsessed online newspaper. Quotations from the New York Times referred to did not appear anywhere else on the web, leading me to strongly suspect they are outright fabrications.

The section is presumably copyright infringement, but even if it isn't, that kind of propaganda doesn't belong in wikipedia.

See the original at http://www.techcentralstation.com/041304B.html.

Is this an Irish encyclopedia? How many of you have actually read the Venezuelan constitution?

Misinformation war By Aleksander Boyd

We live in the "information era". As pundits have it "humanity has never been so informed" or misinformed shall we say? One of Hugo Chavez' apologists best arguments -ill used in 95% of occasions- is that the Venezuelan media has taken an extremely biased and partisan approach against the president. "There are no reliable sources of information in Venezuela" they maintain. Please allow me to extrapolate the issue to the UK.

The UK media could be divided in clearly differentiated groups. The tabloids, which could be defined benignly as "sensationalist" or if we were to be crude in their description we could simply say that they produce "B. S. for the masses". The Sun, The Mirror, News of the World and so on just cannot be taken seriously (lest one is an attention-addict showbiz star...)

Then there are the self-proclaimed "reliable sources" of information whose staff is composed of swarms of intellectuals and erudite analysts who have the prodigious ability to untangle the most intricate of situations from thousands of miles in the distance. The most peculiar exponents of this group are the BBC, The Guardian and The Independent. Without a doubt this is the most harmful group for their constant and conscious effort to belie the truth bears a hefty price i.e. human lives.

The third group is formed by "serious sources". Examples are The Times and the FT. However, even the most widely respected sources are not infallible. Humans by nature gather round what they like and dismiss what they dislike. To us, any dissenting perspective to our deeply held convictions is nothing short of a blatant lie, an insult. The viewpoints of those who make a living out of "informing" have not the capacity to change the facts though; they can manipulate, tergiversate and fabricate all sorts of laberinthyan arguments, but how can they change history?

Fortunately they cannot, it is impossible. None of the carefully thought off polemic slants will bring back to life Dr Kelly for example. Tony Blair has been called all sorts of things lately by the cognoscenti of the second group, isn't that a clearly partisan and biased view? Since the war with Iraq started the PM has been mercilessly attacked by them on a daily basis. No one dares however to suggest a "media coup" or propose a "gag law". Why not?

The reason is that is easier to spot the mistakes in other societies. No self-respected journalist would engage in a self-flagellation campaign if the facts collide with his beliefs. Not one single one of them would say publicly "throughout the years, the reports produce by me have been completely disconnected with reality". On the contrary, the difficulty of being a journalist nowadays is not to inform but rather to masquerade his beliefs using the issues and facts at hand to appeal certain audiences. Left or Right don't matter we all suffer the same delusional disease. "Amanecera y veremos"

An old Venezuelan adage, which comes handy meaning "as the day breaks we shall see". All the hypothesis proposed to date by Hugo Chavez and his sycophants will be destroyed. The facts will come to public scrutiny just as those assassinated by his regime met with death. We should not expect an apology for the misinformation campaign displayed by the international leftist media for by that time another Chavez will have sprung to the limelight somewhere else. And they will entertain their twisted minds with all sorts of new lucubrations. The BBC's sexy lies from the New York Post

July 22, 2003 -- Just as President Bush's critics on Capitol Hill and in America's reflexively lefty media have seized on an alleged "smoking gun" of faulty intelligence to undercut his public support, British Prime Minister Tony Blair is coming under similar assault.

The catalyst there is the suicide of Dr. David Kelly, a weapons inspector who was identified as the source of a British Broadcasting Corp. report charging that the Blair government had ordered a public dossier of Saddam Hussein's crimes "sexed up" to bolster the case for war.

Indeed, the prime minister already has found himself being taunted by reporters demanding to know "if you've got blood on your hands."

But though Blair is taking a major political hit, it's the supposedly impartial - and, by the way, taxpayer-funded - BBC that stands before the world as the purveyor of "sexed-up" information.

That is to say, disinformation.

Back in May, BBC defense correspondent Andrew Gilligan reported that "one of the senior officials in charge of drawing up the dossier" on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was charging that Blair and his aides deliberately deceived the British people by overstating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

BBC officials refused to disclose their source, but said the story was based on "one senior and credible source in the intelligence services."

An understandably outraged Blair ordered an investigation, which quickly focused on Kelly, a microbiologist involved in the search for WMD.

Ordered to testify before a House of Commons panel, he insisted he couldn't have been the source - because he hadn't said anything remotely like what Gilligan reported.

"From [our] conversation, I don't see how he could make the authoritative statement he was making," said Kelly.

But when Kelly - obviously distraught over having been thrust into the limelight - took his own life last week, the BBC confessed that he had, in fact, been the network's source.

Problem is, Kelly was never in the intelligence services. Nor was he "one of the senior officials in charge of drawing up the dossier."

And, as he himself insisted just days before his death, he'd never said what the BBC claimed he said.

Indeed, if anyone is guilty of having "sexed up" the information it gave the public, it's the BBC - not Tony Blair.

But that's hardly surprising: From the start, the network was in the forefront of those trying to rouse opposition to war with Iraq and to undermine both Blair and Bush.

Indeed, the BBC was taken to task during the war itself by one of its own front-line correspondents, Paul Adams, who wrote a blistering memo to his bosses blasting the network's coverage, which contended that the U.S.-led coalition was suffering repeated military defeats.

Even before the conflict began, the London Daily Telegraph reported, the BBC was receiving "an unprecedented number of complaints at the alleged anti-war and anti-American tone of its coverage of the Iraqi crisis."

In fact, the BBC's director-general, Greg Dyke, publicly denounced U.S. journalists for their "gung-ho patriotism," adding that he was "shocked while in the United States by how unquestioning the broadcast news media was during this war."

And yet it's Blair who, outrageously, is being made to bear the brunt of British public outrage.

It's the BBC that needs to be answering questions about its deliberately distorted political reporting.

Because, as Greg Dyke has admitted, "if, over time, we lost the trust of our audiences, there is no point to the BBC."

That, ultimately, is between the BBC and the British taxpayer.

For Americans, the lesson is that "sexing up" the news is not limited to, well, America

"Out of about five major TV networks, and one out of approximately ten major newspapers is completely opposed to Chavez."

How many of the five major TV networks are opposed to him?

Only one out of 10 major neswpapers is "completely" opposed to him. And this is with the pressure of the international "media" brightly on him. Does that mean he has 90% approval? Why isn't that the big news? I'm sure if it was Bush Jr. who had those kind of approval ratings it would be touted about to the folks at home, the U.N., and the rest of the world.

A new documentary has just been shown here in Ireland this week (20 Feb 2002). It was filmed during the April 2002 coup. It is an incredably powerful piece of film making and clearly shows that the American propaganda machine along with the oil barons in Venezuela have controlled the media. The information in this article is shown to be totally inaccurate. The film, "The revolution will not be televised" will be shown on BBC soon and all over Europe in the next couple of weeks. It will be interesting to see what reaction there is to it. Even though the US perports to be the free world will it give this amazing film an airing on network TV? We will wait and see. It is without doubt the most powerful piece of television I have ever seen. I will never believe one word that comes fron Colin Powell lips again.

One example. It mentions in the article that there is film of the Chavez supporters shooting at the opposition march. Indeed this film was shown in the US and on Venezulan TV to give the impression that that's what they were doing. The new documentary clearly shows that this film was manipulated and that Chavez supporters were firing from a bridge onto an empty street. Firing at buildings that housed the snipers. The snipers were clearly anti Chavez. Anyway I beg anyone interested in the truth to see it.

Yeah, sure. They were firing snipers. Strangely, they were laughing (see the video) and taking turns to shoot the snipers. And the snipers were on the street (they were shooting to the street below the bridge).

Whether the film will be shown in the US or not has nothing to do with the news being manipulated and totally to do with the fact that nobody here cares about Venezuela, even though it's one of the main reasons gas prices are going up right now. -- Zoe - "Out of about five major TV networks, and one out of approximately ten major newspapers is completely opposed to Chavez."
 * simple edit: "Out of about five major TV networks, and approximately ten major newspapers all but one is completely opposed to Chavez."   which is completely supported by a quick google search.  The characterization of the "coup" seems reasonable, but the discussion of the oil strike, at the very least, needs to be re-written to be NPOV and to give dates.  Rick Boatright 03:54 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

I, too, saw the Irish Documentary - Amazing Video - There definately was a coup, it showed recordings of one of the Private TV channel on the morning after the coup discussing how the coup was planned. I would urge everyone to try to seek out this video.

Having seen the video I too can confirm that it was shocking viewing. The contrast between what the video showed happening and then the barefaced lies told to the US media by Bush administration spokespeople about what they claimed had happened made me physically sick. Press officers on occasion can be economical with the truth, play down some facts, highlight others. But to tell 100% of lies, and then have CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC et al parrot these fictions as fact was horrifying; horrifying that an administration that stresses its moral zeal could be so utterly dishonest, horrifying that the US broadcast media is so pathetically bad these days that they accepted White House lies at worst, at best gave the White House fiction equal credibility with independently sourced information from neutral sources that had documentary evidence that disproved the WH version. But then Europe (its public, its politicians and its media) could not believe how awful and blatently biased the US media coverage of the war in Iraq was. Even senior people I know in the US media privately said they were ashamed of US media behaviour that owed more similarities to Michael on wiki than Woodward and Bernstein. But then, as one frustrated journalist said on Irish radio, in the old days he would get four or five minutes if it was needed to explain a complicated news story. Now you might get 40 seconds, laced with nice-sounding but not particularly useful soundbites, before you cut to a commercial. So you make the story as simple as possible, preferably a good versus bad parable, with whomever America likes the good guy. So it was hardly surprising that the media in the US proved so chronically unable to offer proper exploration of the Chavez coup story, if all they had was 40 seconds and the need to produce a good versus bad parable that wouldn't offend advertisers who pay good money for slots in bulletins.

At least in the 1980s when Reagan told outright lies about El Salvador and Latin America (and the rest of the world knew they were lies having had events filmed by their own camera crews) the US media, or some elements of it did dig deeper and try unsuccessfully to point out the Reagan fictions. Today the US media, as they showed over Chavez and the war, prefer 40 second simplistic soundbites to the sort of in depth analysis that the US media used to be justly famous for. (Not that that is just a US phenomenon. Just look at what has happened to the dumbed down ITN in the UK, where stories about Posh and Becks will get equal coverage to a threatened Ethiopian famine. The old ITN would have explored the Chavez story. The new ITN was too preoccupied celebrity stories to give it more than 12 words, half of them from Bush's spokesman. Here endeth tonight's sermon! :-) FearÉIREANN 00:39 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Oh yes, the coverage of Iraq is so horrifically biased. I guess that's why we hear about the insurgents gaining ground, potential problems with forthcoming elections, terrorists pouring in from Iran, etc. etc...

If only the US media would interview relatives of dead Iraqi civilians on a day-to-day basis, THEN it would be truly fair and balanced. 64.7.89.54 06:28, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

-- FearÉIREANN:

Once again, your scrupulous, meticulous research is evident. Excellent contributions to the April 2002 coup. As always, better than the fair and balanced reporting on Fox News Channel. 172

I've cut : "Although Chavez originally had a popularity rating of around 80%, his popularity has steadily declined in the past year, supposedly reaching the low 30% range by Spring 2002. According to a recent Associated Press article, polls indicate that he would have been reelected if an election had been called at that time." Chavez was elected isn't it ? In a democracy polls didn't replace a constitution. Ericd 16:43 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

--

Chavez never had 80% popularity. The most he had was when he won his second election and that was about 58% (see Wikipedia).

---

Good move, Ericd. Those polls are highly suspect, too. Venezuelan media, especially Venevision, are quite hostile to the Chavez government and have resorted to airing hysterical propaganda almost all day during the height of the recent strike. Their polls, along with opposition polls, are suspect. But even polls by reputable agencies, such as AP, such be questioned. Polling in Venezuela is very difficult. There is a tendency to over-represent the middle class due to the difficulties in polling the vast majority of the population in shantytowns, slums, and rural plantations.

Ecuador was a good example of this problem. Following the recent presidential elections, I recall the stunningly poor predictive quality of polls by well-regarded firms, which did not demonstrate the electoral support for Lucio Gutierrez. While conditions in Ecuador are relatively worse than in Venezuela, most have attributed this to the difficulties encountered when polling isolated, Indian areas in the countryside and the impoverished Indian barrios in the big cities, where Gutierrez was strong. 172

IMO many Americans sources about Chavez are highly suspect. It's obvious that all the private TV where anti-Chavez and I doubt about the existence of any serious polling institute in Venezuela. Who payed for such polls who did them ? Ericd 18:51 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

-

In Venezuelan polls, you should expect chavez numbers to be lower than reported. The reason is that many people here would not show their political opposiiton publicly because known oppositors are persecuted. vegetasiyajin ---

"agents provocataire" is it supposed to be French language ? In that case this should be "agents provocateurs".

Please explain this: Chavez passed a set of 49 laws. Is he a legislature? Wouldn't the legislature have passed laws which Chavez proposed? RickK 22:01 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The legistlature passed a law called Ley Habilitante which allowed CHavez to legislate.

I just reverted. The user who put in "new" stuff put a whole heap of factually questionable POV stuff and suspiciously systematically deleted things that were not pushing an anti-Chavez line. A user with a similar IP number (though it may not be the same user) has been similarly doctoring pages on other left wing South American leaders (whom they called communist in their edits). When examined the claims never stood up and anything that was not highly condemnatory of the leaders was curiously edited out. I simply reverted to the version before the mysterious IP user, which was the version that was neither pro- nor anti- Chavez. As to that line, I am not the author of it. I presume it was just lazy textual editing; they meant he proposed to the legislature and got passed 49 laws. But as I don't know the constitutional structures involved, I decided not to make a unilateral change and leave it up to someone who does. FearÉIREANN 01:26 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Moved from article:

If your intent is to create a database or encyclopedia for humanity to learn about relevant issues, the least thing you should do -for your credibility's sake- is to post veritable information. Hugo chavez never attended the Simon Bolivar University, his coup d'etats caused the deaths of more than 100 innocents, has violated human rights, the rule of law and the constitution and represents the biggest most dangerous obstacle for the celebration of a referendum, which by the way is a constitutional right (Art.72) Should the goal of this encyclopedia be that of political propaganda for certain interest please allow the rest of us to post our views. The long and fabricated argument about the casual presence of the Irish filmmakers does your credibility no good. Yours faithfully, Aleksander Boyd http://www.vcrisis.com http://www.proveo.org PS: be aware that anyone could read your acertive comments regarding neo-fascists. Perhaps a simple search for the definition will clarify your clouded understanding of the term.

-- Notheruser 14:55 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

- I'm getting ready to go offline in about 10 minutes. Before that, however, would anyone be interested in me protecting this page? It seems like the trolls are running amuck right now all over Wiki. 172 14:59 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Due to constant vandalism over the course of an entire day by a single user before Wiki went offline, and recent vandalism afterwards, this page has to be protected. Since I'm not a contributor to this page, there will be no hint of impropriety. 172 15:31 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * According to the edit history there were four edits which have been reverted. Three of them were down to disputed NPOV, the fourth was an inappropriate personal message. These didn't happen over the course of "an entire day" - the first three happened over the course of an hour, and then a day later there was a single isolated edit. I've unprotected the page, and have it on my watchlist. Should there be genuinely persistent vandalism, I will protect it again. --Camembert


 * OK, FearÉIREANN explained to me that the user in question was over several pages, so that explains that. As I say, I'll keep an eye on this page for any funny business (which hopefully will alert us to funny business on other pages too). --Camembert

Just so people know, the user in question had consistently being adding in POV anti-Chavez claims all over the place. A similar IP before added in bizarre rants all over the place that were very similar in tone, accusing any South American leader to the left of Pinochet of being communist. I spent quite a lot of time reverting articles, NPOVing POV rants, etc. On balance looks like the same person who has continually returned to South American pages to POV them. Protecting this page seems logical to stop this user constantly POVing the page. Appeals to them to stop and follow NPOV have have been ignored, treated with contempt and verbal abuse at worst. I have in the past had to block another IP doing the same thing to the same pages. There appears to be a clear pattern in the nature of the POVing. FearÉIREANN 17:55, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Protection
Since I'm uninvolved with this article and he's been very persistent about vandalizing this article over the course of almost a week, I decided to protect the page. 172 17:20, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Please could you list it on protected page, then? I think Camembert has mentioned this to you before. Thanks. :) Martin 18:41, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * I was trying, but I couldn't access Wikipedia at the time. I was going offline and figured that I should spare those involved with the article, who aren't able to protect it due to their involvement, from having to revert the article over and over again, before leaving. 172 05:57, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Cheers :) Martin 10:15, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It's already been a couple of days, so I'll unprotect the page now. Does anyone want to take bets on the timing of the next bout of vandalism? I'll protect it again if (I should say when) he returns. 172 05:47, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Given this one user's continuous attempts not just to POV this article but to do the same on other articles, I think a block on that IP, should he do it again, may be an option to be considered. This user has gone way beyond a mere disagreement over content; he deletes anything he disagrees with en bloc, adds in dodgy POV replacements and seems to believe that the only time this article will get it right is when it implies that Chavez is the anti-christ. Maybe we should send him over to Fred's POVedia, though his politics may be a little bit too rightwing even for Fred!!! FearÉIREANN 06:36, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Blocking the IP might not work. He seems to have a shifting, dynamic address given the page history. God damn AOL!! So the best we can do is protect pages. And if that doesn't work, maybe we should send him off to Fred's refugee camp for Reaganite Wikipedians. But don't worry, I won't edit this page (although I've been following him with great interest for years) so that I can continue to be in the position to protect the article. 172 06:56, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

-- What do people think of these photos illustrating poverty in Venezuela? Do they have a place in this article or a Venezuela-related article? 172 11:41, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

- This not really the core of the debate about Chavez. The policy of of Chavez may well contribute to reduce poverty as it may in fact have reverse effects.

Wrong. The policy of Chavez only contributes to reduce poverty. They blame previous governments on the current 80% poverty, but when Chavez arrived it was 60%.

Here is my resume of the situation : A democraticaly elected president tries to fire the managers of a state-owned company is deposed in a military coup.

Can any serious democrat support the coup ? Ericd 12:16, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

- Ericd: Actually, I'm very sympathetic to Chavez. I proposed that the photos be included when discussing the widespread support Chavez received from the impoverished majority. The photos would be an example of the conditions in many of his supports live. 172 12:47, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC) - I'm also very sympathetic. But we can add such photo in any article about any third world country or third world leader.

The way some media are manipulating the opinion about Chavez rely of the ignorance of many about the situation in those countries. I was in Burkina Faso during the revolution and I remember very well how it was reported in some "serious" medias. They do the same with Chavez. I believe it's very important and compliant with NPOV to insist on some basic facts : - Chavez was elected, - He respect the constitution. If the style of Chavez shows some some authoritarism as it is reported by some of his detractors who cares ?. I can write he's not the only one. Jacques Chirac or Sylvio Berlusconi can also be viewed has having authoritarian tendencies. I've heard the speech of Chavez when he was reinstalled this was mainly the speech of a democratic leader appealing people to respect the constitution. Ericd 16:36, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia supporting Hugo Chavez?
It has been a long time since my last visit to this encyclopedia, however I must bring your attention upon a couple of issues that you have included in Hugo Chavez' page which are blatant lies. The first -and I tried to edit the version you have to no avail- has to do with Chavez' attendance to Simon Bolivar University. Please do take the time to check in the uni records to confirm this. Secondly, your recent comment regarding the assasination plot of the CIA and the cancellation of Chavez' trip to the UN. What facts do you have to support these sort of statements? Is Wikipedia a propaganda mouthpiece of the "Bolivarian" government? Who is editing these pages? With respect to the highly acclamated documentary to which you refer, did you know that Amnesty International decided recently not to show the documentary for its bias content? Do you know that a group of NGOs will take legal actions against the producers of the documentary? I believe you are doing your users more harm than good in propagating such lies, if you are intent to create the world's greatest encyclopedia your staff should be doing their research duties more thoroughly and objectively. Aleksander Boyd, A concerned Venezuelan.


 * Amnesty International (AI) has publicly confirmed that a fear of violence directed at their staff forced the organisation to withdraw 'The Revolution Will Not Be Televised' from their recent film festival in Vancouver, Canada. Amnesty spokesman said the organisation had been forced to pull the film after staff at their Venezuelan office expressed fears for their safety if the film was screened.
 * http://www.chavezthefilm.com/html/film/amnesty.htm
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,12716,1090788,00.html User:Mikegr 4 Feb 2004


 * Sir, Wikipedia is a open collaborative effort in which many people from diverse backgrounds participate in an non-hierarchical environment. By definition and design, it can never be a "propaganda mouthpiece" for any government.

Please do not judge this enterprise on the basis of ONE article with which you disagree. Un saludo cordial. -- Viajero 12:18, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)~

Here is a cut and paste from my edit record in history. (cur) (last). . 00:03, 23 Sep 2003. . Ericd (If you disagree give sources please) We don't have check in the uni records ! This is given by many sources, should we also verify his birthdate ? Had Chavez faked his CV ? It's not impossible. If you're a concerned Venezualan you must have better sources than us, then provide at least a reference to a book, a newspaper article, a website etc... I haven't found any reference on the web about a faked CV of Chavez. Ericd 21:04, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ericd and other Venezuelan experts,

here's a link to the page of the presidency of Venezuela containing information on Chavez' CV  apologies to the language impaired. If you can find there mention to his "master studies" at Simon Bolivar University please let everyone know, otherwise for credibility's sake you must correct that detail in Hugo Chavez' page. There is a rather grave accusation that has not been substantiated with evidence other than interpretations from supporters of the regime, which is that of the "coup in 2003 and training camps in Florida". You also fail to mention the historic decision by the Spanish Audience to transfer to the ICC [Internationla Criminal Court] the case for crimes against humanity presented by the defendants of April's 11 2002 victims against Hugo Chavez and 22 of his closest aides. As a side note, when you comment about the extraordinary Irish film you could perhaps let readers know that Amnesty International decided to remove the film from its festival in Vancouver. Aleksander Boyd.

I don't claim to be an expert neither to read or speak Spanish but this is a cut and paste from your source : "Obtuvo las más altas calificaciones en los diversos cursos que realizara en el seno de las Fuerzas Armadas. También hizo estudios de Post-Grado en la Universidad Simón Bolívar en la especialidad de Ciencias Políticas" Who can translate ? Ericd 21:56, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok, here is a rough translation:
 * Obtained the highest results in the courses taken in the Armed Forces. Also did post-doctoral studies in political science at the University Simón Bolivar
 * Enough said. Well done, Ericd. -- Viajero 22:04, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Quick clarification to Viajero's (otherwise spot-on) translation: estudios de Post-Grado would only be post-graduate studies (ie, a master's, or work towards the doctorate level); not post-doctoral. –Hajor 00:48, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

-

Can the writer of the "2003" update reference the quote of US ambassedor about millitary training to the opposition? This is a very strong claim to make

---

The quote from the US ambassador should be referenced.

A counter-link to The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
Just FYI, here is a link to a page and petition arguing that this "documentary" is full of half-truths and outright deceptions:


 * htttp://www.petitiononline.com/gusano03/

-

I removed a sentence citing his approval rating. Since other users have already explained why the polling data might be unreliable, there is no need for me to bore everyone by reiterating the details. If we were to provide sufficient background on the debate of the polling data, we would have to stray off topic considerably. Backgrounding is essential, but we don't want to turn this into a media in Venezuela article. 172 09:29, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

- There a couple of facts left out or erroneous information in this article. Among the ones I find more important are:

1) During the day of 11 of April of 2002, the day of the coup, there is no mention of the fact that, before the deaths started, Chavez ordered an emergency broadcast and all the radio and television stations started transmitting his speech. When the shooting started, he did not mentioned anything; People on their homes did not know about the problems in Caracas downtown until the television stations decided to split the images and show, side by side, the speech and the events happening right next to the government palace. Even then, Chávez did not mention the events; as a matter of fact he tried to force the television stations to stop transmitting the events.

2) Also, there is no mention to the fact that Chavez tried to activate the so called "Avila Plan". This is an emergency procedure that orders the military to be deployed in Caracas, with loaded weapons, to contain public unrest. The last time the Avila plan was used by President Perez in 1.989 to try to stop the rioting in Caracas, with more than 5,000 deaths. Cynics might point out that this was one of the motives that prompted Chavez to attempt his failed coup against Perez in 92.

3) The phrase "After violence erupted between demonstrators and police (controlled by the opposition)" is false; in Caracas operate at least 6 police forces, one for each district and one "general" police, plus one "political" police. In the area of the conflict, there were at least 3 police forces operating: PoliCaracas (Controlled by Freddy Bernal, a close ally of the president and Mayor of Downtown Caracas), the political police "DISIP" (controlled directly by the central government) and the "Policia Metropolitana" (Metropolitan Police, controlled by the Caracas General Mayor Alfredo Peña, a former ally of the president and in that moment a member of the opposition).

4) The most telling bit about the responsibility for the deaths, in my opinion, is also missing: Even though Chavez has a solid majority in the Congress, every attempt that has been made to appoint a independent investigation into those days have been blocked by the MVR (Chavez's political party).

There are other mistakes, but I need to get back to work. Will continue latter at night

Pfui! my first post ever in the Wikipedia! -- Abraxas223

The article translates "pendejo" as "asshole" or "wanker". I think this follows the practice of a news agency, and Babelfish gives "asshole". However, Collins Spanish Dictionary translates "pendejo" as "berk, idiot", and Cambridge-Klett translates "pendejo" as "fool". Collins and Cambridge mark the word as informal or colloquial, not as a slang, let alone vulgar expression. We must therefore ask whether an excessively crude translation has been given.


 * The force of 'pendejo' does vary from country to country, but I believe it is both strong and vulgar in Venezuela. We'd have to ask a Venezuelan or two. And in any case, GWB's Spanish is probably Mexican enough to take pendejo as fightin' words. Oh: and what Chávez said wasn't just 'pendejo' but 'muy pendejo' -- intensified! (FWIW, the literal meaning is "pubic hair".) –Hajor 02:10, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

En Français idiot, abruti, imbecile voire con ou connard n'est pas vraiment diplomatique mais n'as pas tout à fait la même valeur que "Trou du cul".

Quant à mon opinion personnelle que je partage avec moi-même : Je pense que le language diplomatique est dépassé pour qualifier la conduite de W.

Ericd 21:41, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

200.84.43.124 - Could you please give a source for the changes you made? As is stated at the top of this page, the Chavez article is a Controversial_issue, and you have previously deleted large sections of the article that were then reverted.pir 18:32, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

--

Now before someone goes and hacks my contribution to pieces, if not deleting it in its entirety, I think this article is woefully lacking in several aspects. I find that although there is a great deal of defense of Chavez and criticism of his opposition, there is relatively little explanation of the reasons for the large and growing opposition to his rule. Charges of Chavez’s autocratic governing style are dismissed if mentioned at all.

I realize there will be a great deal of rework to my contributions, but all the points I made should be brought up. TDC 18:04, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Some Sources:

on the judicial emergency committee and re-writing of Venezuela's constitution:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/1999/405.htm New York Times, Section A, Page 11 August 31, 1999 New York Times, Section A, Page 6 September 18, 1999

On the Bolivarian Labor Force: http://www.miami.edu/nsc/pages/newsupdates/Update40.html TDC 18:33, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

--

proposed alternative by TDC
TDC:

If you want better luck getting your content added to the article, don't make sweeping, controversial changes directly to the article unilaterally. Instead, you can do whatever you want to the article in your own sandbox, and place a message at the top of the existing article with a link to your proposed alternative. Below I created a template for you. 172 19:25, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Before editing this article, please see the current discussion about replacing it with a proposed alternative found at TDC/Hugo Chavez.

Thanks for the tip. Now what is the concensus on the proposed changes and the reasoning for them? TDC 19:53, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I think that that's to be determined. My guess is that if more users favor your version over the article you can replace the article with the draft in your sandbox. Or, other users might synthesize your proposed alternative and the current article, favoring some of your changes but not others. For now I'll add the above message to the article so that everyone can take a look. 172 21:40, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Your draft, along with this discussion, is now linked to the very top of Hugo Chavez. You're now ready to rally support for your version on this talk page. 172 21:48, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think a synthesis would be just as good. Like I said earlier, the accusations against Chavez, namely that he is an autocrat, have not been dealt with or evenly presented in this article. If you read through my additions, you will notice several facts, like the firing of govt employees who have signed the recall or the abolition of the legislature, which have gotten no attention in this article. I also have a trascript of Chavez's state of the Union speech where he openly admits to many of these charges, like provoking the national stirke. I guess he did not think his speech would be widely published. TDC 22:57, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not one of the writers of this article. I've stopped a number of edit wars here and kept sweeping changes at bay until a consensus was reached, but that's about it. I'd like to keep it that way, as I should finish other projects on WP before taking up this commitment. The writers should closely examine your draft. 172 00:13, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So, what kind of time frame are we talking here? TDC 01:00, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I guess that it stays up as long as you deem necessary. The policy guidelines in this area are pretty informal. To speed everything up, you can look through this talk page, find out who are the writers, and notify them about your proposed alternative. 172 01:39, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am guessing much of this was written in Spanish and translated into English -- some phrases are just incorrect usage (e.g. "He has an antogonistic position to ..."). The following sentence does not make sense:
 * He is a controversial figure because he has been governing Venezuela following the principles of a progressive social movement, which he calls Bolivarianism, in honor of the Venezulan-born South American independence hero Simón Bolívar.

Yes, he is a controversial figure. And yes, he calls his ideology Bolivarianism. But he is not a controversial leader "because" he governs according to his own ideology -- that is plain uninformative. Should this sentence simply be split in two? Can someone work on the basic English, for clarity and proper grammar, without sparking an edit war? Slrubenstein

Are you refering to my new addition?TDC 23:26, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am referring specifically to the two things I mention above. I am not discussing content, only grammar, usage, and style. Slrubenstein

So aside from grammar, usage, and style, are you saying you have no problem with the revisions?TDC 02:11, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC) - What kind of crap are you putting here? Is Chavez paying money to you or something? The article says:

"Military officers who signed the petition were disciplined. Venezuela's state run oil company would not hire people known to have signed the petition. The credibility of these and other claims in The Economist is low, since they have not being backed up wuth evidence and the right wing nature of the magazine. "

It is very well known here that anyone who signed against Chavez is being threatened in some way. There is no way you can be hired in PDVSA if you signed against Chavez. And you say the credibility of this claim is low? It is your credibility which is starting to lower. People who signed cannot get a passport, are not paid debts, are not allowed to have contracts with the government (unless they bribe lower corrupt members of the government, which are many).

You say: "The process continue onfolding but even CNN polls suggest that in the case that the referendum would take place, Chávez would have the majority of support. ". Almost all polls give Chavez about 30% of support. Some give him less, and the most optimists give him 40%. If a referendum would take place Chavez would lose. That is the reason there hasn't been a referendum. Didn't you know the referendum should have taken place in November 2003. The constitution says the signatures can be submitted at the middle of the period (that was august 2003) and the laws say the referendum should take place no more than 90 days later. 9 months have passed and the referendum hasn't been done. And probably willl not be done. And if it is done, Chavez will win with a fraud. The CNE (electoral council) is run by Chavez servants and they have done (and will continue doing) everything to prevent Chavez from being removed from office. At the moment, they rejected more than one million of signatures against chavez. Most of them are valid, but they had to reject it because those are their orders. The Electoral "Room" of the Supreme Court says they have to consider valid many of the signatures they rejected and then comes the Constitutional "room", which is also run by chavez servants, and says the Electoral room has no jurisdiction over Electoral affairs.

You have no idea of what is happening in Venezuela. Since chavez, the number of poors has increased in about 2.5 million. You can find references for that anyware. You have to change the page because it is clearly biased towards chavez. You have to at least include some of the suggestions made by other user above. It is very easy for you to be "very sympathetic to Chavez". You are from a very comfortable place, where there are no military forces shooting at your place. You are not the one being denied a passport because you disagree with the government. I think people like you believe you are superior to latin americans, consider us some kind of inferior animals and when a leader like chavez comes who proposes giving charity to poors, you think it is a great idea because you can't believe people like us can be as competent (if not better) than americans.

You also say: "I proposed that the photos be included when discussing the widespread support Chavez received from the impoverished majority. The photos would be an example of the conditions in many of his supports live. having to live under a dictatorship. You said:

I proposed that the photos be included when discussing the widespread support Chavez received from the impoverished majority. The photos would be an example of the conditions in many of his supports live."

Not only many of his supporters, but also many of his opponents. According to your logic, Chavez should have 80% support because 80% of the people are now poor. If that were the case, there would be no problems here. In fact, if all poor people supported Chavez, his support would increase every day. The problem is that while the vast majority of Chavez supporters are poor, it is not true that most poors support Chavez.

Why don't you show pictures of million person marches of people against Chavez? Many of them poor, since there aren't one million of rich or middle class adult persons in Caracas.


 * Trying to get balance from the Mercedes Marxists here is like trying to milk a bull. TDC 16:08, May 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's many marxists here if someone has a political POV on his user page it's you.
 * Ericd 17:19, 4 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Hahahahahahahah! Whoooo Weeee, that some of the funniest stuff I have heard in weeks! You might just want to quit your day job with material like that!. TDC 17:22, May 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * What you consider legitmate a coup agaisnt George W Bush who was elected without the majority of suffrages ? Why did the US officially support democracy but only as long the people didn't elect a left-wing president ? Firing the board of a state owned corporation is among the normal attributes of a President in many democratic countries. When François Mitterrand became President in France  he was also accused by the right-wing press to fire some CEO of public company for political purpose. What do think you the right-wing politician did when they came back to power they fired a lot of CEO in state-owned company too. Is the legitimacy of PVSA CEO superior to Chavez legitimacy ?


 * I just like to know why is Chavez so evil for many. He's left-wing ? Yes he his. He conduct left-wing policies ? Yes he does. What else ? Are there death squadrons in Venezuela ? Gulags ?


 * Ericd 20:54, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Well Ericd, lemme punch a few holes in that weak string of word you call an argument.

I realize that you may not grasp all the nuances of American electoral procedure, but the electoral college is the legally binding way to elect a president in the US. This procedure does not require that a candidate receive a majority of all votes cast, just a majority of those cast by the electoral college. Now I realize that this concept flies in the face of progressive dogma of fairness, but it is in accordance with the long respected tradition of the rule of law, a hall mark of mature democracies, or in the case of the US, a republic.

A responsible administrator would appoint PVSA board members on their ability to run the organization, not on their allegiance or loyalty to one individual. The socially responsible thing for Chavez to do would be to appoint the best qualified individual to run the company since it is the most important contributor to Venezuela’s economic activity. Not to manufacture a crisis and then use that crisis for a Stalinist purge.

Lastly, if the 20th century has taught us anything about politics, it is that left wing never equals democracy. The problem with the extreme left and their blind faith in utopian political theory is that they believe that the ends will always justify the means. It is perhaps one of the great ironies of modern history that leftism, which promises a more humane, caring, and equitable society, has consistently delivered a more oppressive and mismanaged one.

As much as people like you despise GWB, I know this much is true, I am never going to die in an Alaskan gulag for counter-revolutionary beliefs. No one is going to split up my family for forced “re-education”, my uncle is never going to be shot in the head or starved to death because he refuses to give his dairy farm up to the local agriculture collective.

We cannot say the same for the people who lived under revolutionary leftist political systems …… now can we?

I realize that there are no gulags in Venezuela (yet) and there are only small concentrated death squads …… er I mean armed bands of Chavistas, but these things always start small, and Chavez has too much opposition to allow these developments to take place over night.

Chavez is just one in a long line of assholes to pollute the pool of world leaders. TDC 21:19, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

The ability of the previous PDVSA board to run the organization was higly debatable PDVSA tax rate was reduced from 75% to 30% by the predecessors of Chavez and it didn't result in more investment. Where did the money go ? Ericd 10:06, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Ericd: You are very misinformed. And regarding the question about where the inmense amount of money the high petroleum price has produced for the government went, well... most Venezuelans have the same question. [User:Vegetasaiyajin] 23:32, 7 May 2004 (VET)

Petroleum price is'nt high today in Europe, $ price is low. Ericd 06:18, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Venezuela is not in Europe and $ price is very very high here (thanks to Chavez wonderful economic policy of destroying the national industry and increasing unemployment and crime rates to never before seen levels). BTW, the general population (and anyone who opposes Chavez) is forbidden from exchanging bolivares (local currency) to US$ or any other foreign currency. [User:Vegetasaiyajin] 14:44, 8 May 2004 (VET)

Thanks I know than Venezuela isn't in Europe do you Venezuela doesn't import any goods from EU ? Oil market is strange today : prices are high at least in $ and production is at a record level. A strange situation that can be explained only by the low $ exchange rate.

Many people could think that a Coup d'Etat and a two months strike can hurt economy more than socialist-flavored policies.

BTW can you give some statistics about unemployement and crime ?

I am generally considered by Chàvez critics as misinformed about Venezuela and honestly I think I am. Sadly, nobody gave me some reasonably independant source to show me how wrong I am. I have another question : Why would a marxist undervent privatizations and include free enterprise in the Constitution ?

I know I shouldn't ask such question because I know the answer : "Marxists are experts to fool the enemy." So let's call anyone you dislike a marxist and call this stuff an encyclopedia.

Ericd 19:56, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I might be misinformed but I'm able to find some information : http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1200 What's your advice ? Ericd 22:40, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Ericd: You are looking in the wrong places. If you call that independent, then you are crazy. It is very difficult to find independent sources for information in Venezuela, but you certainly seem to believe only the information produced by the government.

The Coup d'Etat did nothing against the economy. In fact, US$ price went down and public debt bond prices went up the two days Chavez was out. The strike did affect the economy though, but not as much as the government says. The bad economic situation was a reason, more than a consequence, of the strike.

A large part of the problem is that it is a state policy to destroy the national private enterprise. This has been the reason for the large unemployment and subemployment rate.

For example, the government fixes a price for the beef. The price is too low for the local producers, so they stop production. The government buys a lot of beef from Argentina or other places and sells it a a lower price. The same happens with chicken and many other products. Chavez has no problems with foreign corporations. This seems to be the new modus operandi for this kind of government (the same happens in Cuba). For example, Chavez gave the largest natural gas reserve to a few multinational oil corporations for about $54 millions in a direct award, while the expected value of the reservoir was about $1200 million and should have gone through an international licitation (don' know if this word exists in english). I was also talking about subemployment. The unemployment figure hides a more horrible fact which is subemployment. These days is practically imposible for a professional graduated from an university to find a job according to his education. So he has to work selling stuff on the street or in a store, or driving a cab.

The crime rate here is very high here. Forget about believing the venezuelan economy is doing good or that crime rates are low. Anyone (including Chavez supporters) living in Venezuela will confirm those indicators are very bad.

BTW, I read the article at http://www.techcentralstation.com/041304B.html, which you or someone regard as horrifyingly anti-Chavez full of propaganda and outright fabrications, and found it very accurate. In fact, while the article is anti-Chavez, all the facts described are true. What you (or someone else) describe as horryfing would be considered a good thing by any Chavez supporter. The problem in Venezuela is that most venezuelans think the things you call horrifying are really horrifying. Your problem is that you believe they are false. In fact, I belive the article is very soft on Chavez because it doesn't touch issues like political prisoners, tortures and other violations to human rights (check http://www.hrw.org/spanish/venezuela.html, which is a left-wing friendly human rights organization).

Regarding your question, Why would a marxist undervent privatizations and include free enterprise in the Constitution ?

The new marxism isn't completely against privatizations, as long as the money comes from foreign companies. Look at Cuba. The private enterprise to be destroyed is the national one because that one has a real interest on the country, while the foreign one does not. Regarding free enterprise in the constitution, the constituiton has provisions for private property (actually, it only says property, not private property), but it is clear private property cannot be abolished in a day. Don't forget the constitution also has provisions for confiscating private property. It is being abolished slowly first by destroying private enterprise. More than half of all private companies have gone broke since Chavez, and no, it was not because of the strike (some companies went broke because of the strike but those are a minority). As an example of the state policy. My father had a company related to the poultry industry, but Chavez policy is to destroy local industry by dumping (importing chicken and selling it at lost in order to break the local companies). He has 30 years of experience and now works helping sell beds in my uncle's business and makes $100 a month ($66 if you use black market price). He is now not unemployed, so he is not in the 15% akcnowledged by the government (23% by some private estimations). He is subemployed. In Venezuela, only about 25% of people are really employed, the remaining 75% are wither in what is called informal economy or unemployed (19-20% if you take the average between private and official estimations).

Believe me. You have no idea of what is going on in Venezuela.

I don't have figures for crime rates, but they are at an all time high. It is very insecure here. Assasinations, kidnapping and car stealing are very common here (at least in the large cities). Thieves have tried to steal my car twice (thank god they failed), and I have been lucky. My cousin (as many other people) was kidnapped and I know several people who have relatives killed. Several years ago, it was hard to know a person who was such a victim, but I have to admit the dramatic increase in crime rates did not start with Chavez government, but with the previous. With Chavez it has increased, though.

Can you believe the government is disarming the police in some states where the governor is oppositor? (of course, criminals are very happy about this situation).

I recommend you to check http://www.vcrisis.com/ or http://www.gusanodelaluz.com/www/inicio.asp to see the point of view of some anti-Chavez people and if you have doubts about the veracity of the "horrifying outright fabrications" of http://www.techcentralstation.com/041304B.html please specify which ones you believe to be a lie so I can clarify and maybe help find a supporting reference.

BTW, sorry for my bad english. [User:Vegetasaiyajin] 00:59 9 May 2004 (VET)

I do not understand why "He is a controversial figure whose policies have antagonised the Venezuelan elite and the current United States government, but have gained the support of Venezuela's Bolivarian Circles, the members of which tend to be drawn from the working classes." should be used in the introduction. "Controversial figure" is a judgement, and the reader gets the same information when reading the article. This article should be primarily about Chavez as President of Venezuela, relations to the current government of another country do not belong in the introduction. I do not understand the sentence "Chavez presented ... his version of the State of the Union." Is there another version? Get-back-world-respect

Nothing about human rights violations... and a whole bunch of things
This article fails to inform the people about the multiple human rights abuses committed by Chavez's government. This has been denounced by various organizations and institutions, among them Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR, part of the Organization of American States, OAS). It says nothing about the reppresion of recent opposition rallies, and leans too much on Chavez's allegations about the "manipulations" of the private media. Besides, it largely bypasses any mention to Chavez's language, which is filled with references to war, violence and lack of tolerance towards dissenting opinions. --Brs76 00:42, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Can you provide links to specific allegations by a reputable organisation (HRW, amnesty)?pir 19:44, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Of course. Here are a few:

http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/venezuela2003eng/toc.htm (This is the report of the IACHR on Venezuela, corresponding to 2003)

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=americas&c=venezu (All documents and news published by HRW regarding Venezuela and the controversial new Supreme Court Law)

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR530082004?open&of=ENG-VEN (About the reppresion of recent opposition rallies)

I hope this helps in writing a more balanced article.

Oh! Forgot something: "2002 Coup Attempt Against Chávez", "2002 Strike/Lockout", "A new coup?" and "Yet another coup in preparation?" are all recurring subjects on Mr Chavez speeches. But the article doesn't say a thing about other aspects, like...

-The controversial handling of Venezuela's oil revenues under Mr Chavez's rule, with allegations of corruption made by both the opposition and former Chavez's allies

-The mishaps of the New Pdvsa (as he likes to call Venezuela's oil company, after the firing of 18,000 employees), including the drop in Venezuelan oil production as attested by the OPEC and the International Energy Agency, reportedly by mishandling of operations and seriously undermining Venezuela's long-term oil production capacity

-The controversy surrounding the oil agreement with Cuba. Some people say this is enough reason to try Mr Chavez in a court, after he leaves office

-The situation created by several new laws passed by the Chavez-controlled National Assembly, like the Supreme Court Law (denounced by HRW), National Police Law (aimed at creating a National Police controlled by the central government, in order to eliminate state and municipal polices)

-His alleged control of most Venezuelan State institutions, like the National Assembly, Supreme Court, the National Electoral Council, the General Prosecutor's Office (who, by the way, previously served as the first Chavez-designated Vice-President), the National Comptroller, and the pro-Chavez standing (and rulings) of most of these people and institutions. See separation of powers for more information on this topic.

-The blatant efforts of Chavez's government to undermine -at all costs- the movement for a recall vote, including unlawful pressuring of public employees

-His seemingly endless obsession with George W. Bush, whom he calls the real leader of the opposition and the source of all evil in the country

-The irrational use of TV-radio chained broadcasts (the so-called cadenas). Only Venezuelans with cable TV can escape this.

-His infatuation with the use of 19-century Venezuela's civil war rhetoric, out of place in this 21st century,

-The shameless display of all the power of the Venezuelan State in supporting Mr Chavez's electoral campaign for the recall vote, including allegedly illegal use of public funds.

-The politization of the Military of Venezuela and the creation of Chavez-supporting paramilitary groups, like the Tupamaros, Carapaicas and the Bolivarian Forces of Liberation (FBL). Not surprisingly, Mr Chavez has stated publicly that his revolution is "armed".

-The soaring crime rates, a rare thing speaking about a government regarded as authoritarian. Mr Chavez himself has said that stealing to eat could be acceptable.

-The high unemployment and underemployment rates (nearly 20% of Venezuela's workforce), and the closure of countless small, medium and big businesses and enterprises

-Mr Chavez alleged affinity with suvbersive groups from neighboring Colombia, most notably the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia


 * Four more things:


 * -An ex-paratrooper, Chávez came to prominence after heading a failed military coup in 1992. A really short reference to what was a REALLY bloody coup attempt.


 * -...the improvement of health and literacy conditions in Venezuela. This remains to be seen.  Many people say that Chavez's social programs (the so-called misiones) in fact are aimed at Venezuela's electoral population. It is public that one of Mr Chavez first decisions in office was to cut the PAMI, an alimentation program for mothers and infants.  And as for the health conditions, Venezuela's public hospitals are now as ruinous as ever.


 * -Chávez presented the Venezuelan National Assembly with his State of the Union address. The "State of the Union" address does not exist in Venezuela. What exists is an annual address of the President to the National Assembly.


 * -In May 2004, Venezuelan state TV reported the capture of 126 mainly Colombian paramilitaries, on properties belonging to (...) media magnate Gustavo Cisneros. This is not true.  The government searched several Cisneros' properties, but nobody was arrested there.--216.72.94.36 18:34, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The article was also missing a lot of the doubts and questions that still surround the alledged paramilitary debacle, which is why I have tried to add some of the opposing viewpoints (there's far from only one clearcut version of these events, other aspects of the situation should be at least mentioned). Juancarlos2004 00:01, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Alleged evidence of his resignation as President
PD

Rough translation of this manuscript, allegedly drawn by Chavez himself while in custody, on April 13, 2002:

"I, Hugo Chavez Frias, identity document number 4.258.228, before the facts that have happened in the country in the last days, and knowing that I have been deposed as President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, declare that I leave the post for which I was legitimally elected by the Venezuelan people, exercised by me since February 2, 1999."

"I also declare that I have, before the evidence of happenings, removed Diosdado Cabello, executive vice-president, from his post."

"Given in La Orchila, at April 13, 2002."

I agree with an earlier post regarding Chavez's conduct on April 11, 2002, which I quote:

1) During the day of 11 of April of 2002, the day of the coup, there is no mention of the fact that, before the deaths started, Chavez ordered an emergency broadcast and all the radio and television stations started transmitting his speech. When the shooting started, he did not mentioned anything; People on their homes did not know about the problems in Caracas downtown until the television stations decided to split the images and show, side by side, the speech and the events happening right next to the government palace. Even then, Chávez did not mention the events; as a matter of fact he tried to force the television stations to stop transmitting the events.

2) Also, there is no mention to the fact that Chavez tried to activate the so called "Avila Plan". This is an emergency procedure that orders the military to be deployed in Caracas, with loaded weapons, to contain public unrest. The last time the Avila plan was used by President Carlos Andrés Pérez in 1.989 to try to stop the rioting in Caracas, with more than 5,000 deaths. Cynics might point out that this was one of the motives that prompted Chavez to attempt his failed coup against Perez in 1.992.

No one knows for sure if he resigned that day or not. If he did, then it wasn't a coup, as the 1999 Constitution foresees the resignation of the President. --216.72.94.36 18:38, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, not, this reasoning is highly flawed since a resignation made at gunpoint, or under any form of illegal duress, while in detention of coupists, is not forseen by the 1999 Constitution. The resignation would have had to be made beforehand, not after being taken by armed force. This is analagous to the claim jumpers here in California back 150 years ago. You can force someone to sign over your claim at gunpoint, dosen't make the new claim legal. The very fact that this document was scribbled by hand and lacks the presidental stationary, type-set, or any form of other legitimating marks, sheds light on the nature of the situation when this note was made. That's assuming it isn't a forgery. Are there any other samples of Chavez's handwriting to compare this to? Even if he wrote it, why couldn't he type it? Oh, thats right, it wasn't an act of presidential will, it was made, if made, under duress and the threat of violence. Case closed. Capone 8-5-04

Oh, and I looked back at this scribbled note so that I could even try to compare the signatures, but OH WAIT GUESS WHAT?! ITS NOT SIGNED EITHER! Allegations allegations allegations. I allege that life on earth originated on planet X. I allege that President Clinton has undergone a sex change operation. I allege that the 7 days of the week points to numerological good luck. I allege that Chavez requested that renegade military officers take him into custody so that he could hastily scribble a resignation note in a constitutional manner as an act of his presidential will. Capone 8-5-04

Yet another link on human rights abuses and political prisoners
http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200403020624 (Presents a complete list of people imprisoned by political reasons, and past assasinations)

2003: A new coup?
Outside of an article written by Kut Nimmo in CP, I cannot find any more information on this, and it seems too highly speculative to include in the article. The alleged statements by Embasador Charles Shapiro also have no source, except fot the Nimmo article, where Nimmo faild to mention his prime source for the statements.TDC 14:07, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

from article
In addition, after they initially took power, opposition figures publicly bragged about how they had engineered'' the coup. They stated that the organisers of the anti-Chávez march had deliberately re-routed the parade to bring it face to face with a pro-Chávez march. This, one coup leader said, was done as a deliberate act of provocation, given that both parades had previously agreed routes with the police to avoid coming face to face. One organiser of the anti-Chávez march told the film crew that the march was intended to be the start of the overthrow of Chávez and that violence could be expected, with agents provocateurs located at the intended meeting point to trigger gunfire and provoke an opposition-controlled police and army response, mass panic and deaths. (Though the phrasing was ambiguous, the anti-Chávez activist speaking after the event while the coup leaders were still in power appeared to suggest that the gunfire was to have been launched against its own supporters initially for which the military would then be blamed.)1''


 * This strikes me as rather dubious and poorly written. Can it please be re-written and better referenced before returned to the article? Thank you. Sam [Spade] 23:48, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality
I have made a number of changes, and no longer think the neutrality (nor the grammer ;) of the article need be disputed. If I don't hear anything to convince me otherwise in the next few days, I'll remove the dispute header. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 00:08, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Seems good to me. TDC 23:12, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

Not Neutral
Can anyone honestly take a good look at the first sentence and tell me that it isn't horribly POV!? I'll give a few days discussion before I change it. Capone

The first sentence says, Hugo Chávez Frías (born July 28, 1954) is the President of Venezuela (since 1999). How is that POV?

Now, maybe you're referring to the second sentence, which says, He is a controversial figure whose policies have polarized broad sectors of Venezuelan society while winning him the support of many of the country's poor. How is that POV? Are you saying he isn't controversial? That he didn't polarize broad sectors of the Venezuelan society? That he didn't win the support of many of the country's poor? Please point to what's POV. RickK 19:50, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the second sentence, sorry. I changed it TO polarized FROM antagonized. The word antagonized is the problem - its POV anyway you look at it. Even 'polarized' could be said to be iffy, since, Chavez supporters or sympathizers could easily say "well no, it was his opposition that polarized/antagonized broad sectors . . ." I put it as 'polarized' since saying antagonized is to say that he is an antagonist, whereas clearly this is POV whose opposite is protaganist. Further, I see it has been changed back, who is doing this? I will change it again now. . Capone 8-4-04 Capone

Also, what gives with the "controversial figure" rap? This is already implied by the fact that he is a political figure. Can anyone name a prominent political figure who isn't controversial? Partisanship and controversy go hand in hand. It seems redundant and brings to question the point of its mention. True, it isn't POV to say he's controversial, but its POV to mention it out of left field in the opening sentences when this tag is clearly missing from many other ostensibly controversial figures, which definitely shades this as POV. Is there an agenda here? I remember reading what Wiki is and isn't. I beg anyone to look at the George W. Bush entry. Then look at Joseph Stalin. There is no mention in the opening intro of either of them being 'controversial', whereas they (like many other countless political figures in history) are certainly controversial. I only ask that H Chavez or anyone else covered on Wikipedia be given the same treatment as George Bush or Joseph Stalin. I will replace controversial with 'radical political' since that is a label that even chavez supporters and chavez himself would not shy from. Radical political easily implies controversial without the slanderous shadings. Agreed? Capone 8-4-04

Heres the new intro: " Hugo Chávez Frías (born July 28, 1954) is the President of Venezuela (since 1999). He is a radical figure who has drawn much fire from the political right and business interests (whom he terms the oligarchy) and as much praise from the political left and social welfare interests, and has thus polarized Venezuelan society." English isn't my first language but this my model of a NPOV intro. Capone 8-4-04


 * Disagree with "radical"; Chavez and his movement are part of mainstream Venezuelan politics at this point. I think the present intro is fine, really. Everyking 01:04, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I like the current version, it sums things up fairly and nicely I think :) Sam [Spade] 16:45, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure if radical implies 'fringe'. Certainly radical politics become mainstream - how else have radical politics been implemented historically if not mainstream? I cannot think of a successfull radical political movement that did not have broad support in large cross sections of that particular society. I'm confused though as to why someone would object to 'radical' but think that the old version with 'antagonized broad sectors' was okay - seems a little contradictory? I do not object to replacing the word radical for some other word that would not shade into the idea of 'fringe' if that is the real concern, but certainly the older version of the intro was far too POV and read like some op-ed from the Ayn Rand 'Capitalism Magazine'. Capone 8-5-04


 * The problem is that I think there is an implicit anti-Chavez bias in "radical". His opponents call him radical to discredit him, in the same breath as they accuse him of trying to model Venezuela on Cuba. I for one preferred the old intro, speaking as a supporter of Chavez; I cannot imagine where the "capitalist" POV was perceived. Everyking 19:52, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In the United States, the term 'liberal' is used to discredit, well, 'liberals'. Many liberals are not ashamed of this tag and do not consider it a tarnishing to be called liberals. In my limited experience, only conservatives consider it slanderous to be called a liberal, just as the term 'capitalist' could be considered slanderous to anti-capitalists, but capitalists themselves normally openly and proudly call themselves capitalists. Do you think, yourself as a Chavez supporter, that the old introduction which (wrongly) stated that he had 'anatagonized' (that can't be GOOD) BROAD (dosen't this seem to imply "MOST"?) sectors of Venezuelan society was MORE NPOV? Do you remember the original introduction? 'Radical' isn't a slur unless you've bought into the idea that it is. Can we call him 'change oriented' rather than radical? Thats fine by me. But I do not buy for a minute that the original introduction could be considered more palatable to a so-called chavez supporter. It was clearly far more anti-chavez than what exists now. Your turning this whole thing on its head and I'm beginning to question your motives and acutal political orientation. Capone 8-7-04


 * This is starting to sound kind of funny. I criticized the change of intro on the grounds that I thought it had a subtle, perhaps accidental anti-Chavez bias, and now I'm being accused of actually being anti-Chavez myself. It seems obviously true to me that Chavez has antagonized certain sectors of Venezuelan society, primarily the wealthy elite. Would you argue that it is they instead who have antagonized him? Because clearly someone has been doing some antagonizing. If Chavez wasn't antagonizing some of those people, he wouldn't be doing his job properly. I didn't say the whole of the old intro was perfect -- perhaps "broad sectors" needed to be changed -- but I thought it was on balance better. Everyking 14:14, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is there anything inherently wrong about pointing out that "other sectors within the middle and upper classes", not limited to just media and business interests, are also opposed to Chávez? Especially since it's being clearly mentioned that the poorer segments of the population support him, it should be equally clear that other higher income groups (and not just the "oligarchy" by itself) also have different opinions.Juancarlos2004 17:21, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes there is. It implies a situation which isn't factual. You have to understand that this is the english language version of wiki and most of its readers are from english speaking countries. In these english speaking countries the term 'middle class' evokes a numerical majority and is thought of (though wrongly) as the norm. The 'poor' are thought of as being just the bottom 10-15% or so. It should be made clear if you want to continue calling Chavez the antagonist, that many of the higher income groups including the middle class feel threatened by him, it should be clear that these people do not represent either a political or numerical majority. From dictionary.com;

SYLLABICATION: an·tag·o·nist PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: n-tg-nst    KEY NOUN: 1. One who opposes and contends against another; an adversary. 2. The principal character in opposition to the protagonist or hero of a narrative or drama.

SYLLABICATION: an·tag·o·nize PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: n-tg-nz    KEY TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: an·tag·o·nized, an·tag·o·niz·ing, an·tag·o·niz·es 1. To incur the dislike of; provoke hostility or enmity in: antagonized her officemates with her rude behavior. 2. To counteract.

SYLLABICATION: pro·tag·o·nist PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: pr-tg-nst    KEY NOUN: 1. The main character in a drama or other literary work. 2. In ancient Greek drama, the first actor to engage in dialogue with the chorus, in later dramas playing the main character and some minor characters as well. 3a. A leading or principal figure. b. The leader of a cause; a champion. 4. Usage Problem A proponent; an advocate

SYLLABICATION: con·tro·ver·sial PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: kntr-vûrshl, -s-l    KEY ADJECTIVE: 1. Of, producing, or marked by controversy: a controversial movie; a controversial stand on human rights. 2. Fond of controversy; disputatious.

PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: rd-kl    KEY ADJECTIVE: 1. Arising from or going to a root or source; basic: proposed a radical solution to the problem. 2. Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme: radical opinions on education. 3. Favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions: radical political views. NOUN: 1. One who advocates fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions: radicals seeking to overthrow the social order.

BROAD SECTORS? Certainly American wiki readers will take this as meaning that Chavez is, besides much support from the 'poor', largely unpopular and his policies antithetical to what 'most' or 'much of', i.e, 'braod sectors' of Venezuelans want.

Should we call Chavez controversial when Bush is not called this on the english wiki? What about Joseph Stalin? Neither of these people are called controversial because supporters of Bush and Stalin on the wiki would and have objected to these characterizations for the very reason that they are negative, POV, and would shade the biography towards the likes of anti-bush or anti-stalin people. The new introduction reads; "Hugo Chávez Frías (born July 28, 1954) is the President of Venezuela (since 1999). He is a controversial figure, both within Venezuela and internationally."

I am happier with this introduction because it is less POV than the one that said 'antagonized' in it. I was not married to the term radical but I didn't see it as a slur. I would like, however, to find, at some point in the future, a word less POV than controversial given that wiki is a work in progress and a volumous work at that. What we are talking about is nuance. From Roget's thesaurus; controversy NOUN: A discussion, often heated, in which a difference of opinion is expressed: altercation, argument, bicker, clash, contention, debate, difficulty, disagreement, dispute, fight, polemic, quarrel, run-in, spat, squabble, tiff, word (used in plural), wrangle. Informal : hassle, rhubarb, tangle. See CONFLICT

George Bush 43's wiki page starts like this.

'George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the 43rd and current President of the United States. His four-year term as President began on January 20, 2001. He is currently seeking a second term, which would last until January 20, 2009 (see George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2004).

Before assuming the presidency, Bush was a businessman and served as Governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000. He is the son of former President George Herbert Walker Bush and the brother of Florida Governor Jeb Bush.'

No mention of controversy until much later in the article, and then, in different terms than actually 'controversal'. Why can we not afford other presidents, like Chavez, this same respect?

Capone 8-8-04

Let us keep the intro short sweet and without any politicaly charged words. TDC 02:52, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Can you write such an intro then please? Thanks in advance Capone 8-9-04

I think the current intro is just fine. Mabey it could elaborate with one more sentence, but it seems good to me. TDC 05:24, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Intro
Saying he is supported by the poor, or worse yet by the "poor majority" is so POV it borders on factual innaccuracy. From what I have read the majority of venezuelans have tried to vote him out by referendum more than once. Do you have any unbiased documentation showing he is "winning enthusiastic support among much of the country's poor majority while provoking the hostility of many among the middle and upper classes."?

Sam [Spade] 20:18, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

He is supported by many of the poor, and the poor are a majority. Both statements are true. It does not say he is supported by a majority of the population, or even by a majority of the poor (although both are probably true). It is silly to have an intro to this article that does not mention the class nature of Venezuelan society's present political polarization. Everyking 20:36, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not quite true that "the majority of Venezuelans have tried to vote him out" more than once. They've been collecting signatures for a couple of years, with the total peaking at around 3.2 million in the last attempt. That's 3.2m out of an electorate of 14,245,615 -- a large number, certainly, particularly with the intimidation/reprisals that have been reported for those signing, but not a majority. My perception is that in terms of numerical support, the country is pretty evenly split: there'll be a 2/3 turnout, with 1/3 for and 1/3 against: the margin either way will be slight. Polarization, per Everyking, is the word. But that's just a guess. We'll find out in five days time. –Hajor 20:44, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Good point, lets leave the intro vague until the referendum gives us something to comment on. Sam [Spade] 21:36, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Imagine if someone replaced the George W. Bush intro with the following: "He has been the President of the United States since 2001. Noted for his right-wing policies, he has proven a controversial figure both within the United States and internationally." He'd be reverted on the spot, as well he should. Encyclopedic intros are straightforward and factual; please refrain from using these vague and elastic terms and adjectives excessively. 172 22:14, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Why don't you read the George W. Bush intro and compare it to the POV mess you've made of yet another article here. Sam [Spade] 22:16, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I did not write any of the content in this article, save the two photo captions in the section on the recall referendum. 172 22:19, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * (Hey, cool pics! Now they're on the referendum article, too! –Hajor)


 * You don't have to write anything in order to make a mess with your reverts. Sam [Spade] 22:27, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The introduction has been NPOVed a bit, the rest I leave to you. Due to enthusiasm being very difficult or impossible to quantify, I think it is better left out. Just poor rather than poor majority should suffice, at least for the introduction, the economic demensions and divisions are better suited in the body of the article. This was listed on RFC so thats my two cents, good luck. Arminius 22:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Allegations of Fraud
This article needs to mention the claims of voting discrepancies between exit polls and final results and address the factual accuracy or inaccuracy of such claims. 64.7.89.54 06:30, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and same goes for that "similar voting counts in multiple counties" allegation. 64.7.89.54 06:31, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Background reading
Good coverage on the referendum and its background on the BBC: thought-provoking articles here, here, and here. Others linked from there. Sharingly, –Hajor

Biased information
Maybe more economic indicators should be presented, such as the unemployment rate, over 100% devaluation of the currency, all-time low in foreign investment, and high inflation, among others, when openly saying that Chavez's policies have in any way benefited the poor. And this is despite oil being at the price it is! Anyone living in venezuela (like me), knows, even if he or she did vote for Chavez, that this is by far one of the most corrupt administrations ever. would the article at least show a picture of an opposition march/protest? One of the many that peaked over 1 million people according to international observers, is the "rich elite" that big? The only one shown is from a pro-Chavez march, shouldn't some balance be made in a so-called "encyclopedia"? How about the many poor that are discontent about Chavez's policies? Is there any factual evidence that they are less poor now in Venezuela, after 6 years of rule? The pictures shown below, of misery and shantytowns in the country, should rather be a source of shame for the Government, rather than be used as political propaganda or as a symbol of class division. If this is truly a Government for the poor, why are the photographs (of a reality which I see here every day) not showing anything better, any improvement at all? Anyone talking a brief walk through the center of caracas will see greater misery, desperate street vendors, and a myriad of beggars in much greater numbers than ever before. And, finally, why not mention the luxury $60 million dollar airplane that Chavez purchased for himself, complete with bar and Jacuzzi, and the fact that for over 4 years now, he never asks permission to the national assembly for a trip, like any President would do, but simply "takes off when he pleases", is that truly democratic? Since the article is heavily and so blatantly biased in favor of Chavez, I have to argue here in favor of the other side...

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)