Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 25

Bar on documenting Chavez's anti-Semitic statements?
An editor made the charge that including an illustration of his anti-semitism is coat-racking. The editor did not explain his contention on this page. Venezuela has seen an exodus of many Jews. The statement of the president can illustrate the climate toward Jews. Additionally, there are many people that have made anti-semitic statements that have been cited in wikipedia. Why is it that the illustrations of anti-semitism cannot be documented in wikipedia? His association with Norberto Ceresole gives context to his thinking of Jews. Again, there is such context provided in discussion of other persons in wikipedia biographies, so why is this not permissible in wikipedia? The quote in contention is the following:
 * “The world has enough for everybody, but some minorities, the descendants of the same people that crucified Christ, and of those that expelled Bolívar from here and in their own way crucified him… have taken control of the riches of the world.”

Finally, two references were provided for this, so this is a responsible contribution that I have made.Dogru144 (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason we do not include the quote is that it is inaccurate. TFD (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes -- parts of the quote were left out in a way that changed its meaning. In the full quote, it's clear that the minority he's talking about the descendants of the Roman ruling class, not Jews. This is just another well-documented case where the corporate media was deliberately trying to mislead people, and there is no reason to include it. Plus even if it wasn't a blatant lie, it would still probably not be worthy of inclusion, just because there are so many other important things to cover regarding Chavez -- we're an encyclopedia, not a celebrity gossip magazine. We leave this type of trash to the National Enquirer and New York Times. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If the guy makes anti-Semitic statements the nit is worthy of mention here. Were is the transcript from which the quote was taken? Then we can see if it is being misquoted mark nutley (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark nutley, you do not ask for sources from people who question a fact, you ask for sources from the person providing the fact. TFD (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You made a statement of fact, The reason we do not include the quote is that it is inaccurate i have asked you to prove it, please do so or take your wp:or elsewere, thanks mark nutley (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:BLP: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced....To ensure that material about living people is always policy-compliant (written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources) the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material."  The article in the Boston Review is an opinion piece and not a good source for facts.  That they misrepresented the quote is a good reason to consider it unreliable.  Please do not re-insert unreliable information into a BLP.  TFD (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added further references, still waiting on proof the this quote is misrepresented, until such a time as such proof is produced we can still do without your OR, thanks mark nutley (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You added an editorial from the WSJ and a commentary from Forbes. Not a reliable source for facts in a BLP.  TFD (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Still waiting on the actual quoate you said was misrepresented, and do not revert unsourced content into a blp again mark nutley (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark -- You can read the full quote here. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, i assume this is it? "The world has enough for everybody, but it turned out that a few minorities—the descendants of those who crucified Christ, the descendants of those who expelled Bolívar from here, and also those who in a certain way crucified him in Santa Marta, there in Colombia—a minority took possession of the planet’s gold, silver, minerals, water, good lands, oil, and they have concentrated all the riches in the hands of a few: Less than 10% of the world population owns more than half of the riches of the world." If that is the case the nregardless of it being shortened it is still anti Semitic, use the full quote and explain some believed he was being so. Problem solved. mark nutley (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Statements about Romans and Latin American elites are not statements about Jews, and by definition cannot be anti-Semitic. And we are under no obligation to include the opinions of non-notable journalists in factually inaccurate op-ed pieces, in an article about a BLP President. There are much more important things to cover, like human rights issues and economic policy. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect, read wp:truth your removal of reliably sourced content is troublesome, you not only remove the quote you also removed the anti Semitic part as well, why? mark nutley (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * mark nutley can you please provide a reliable source that interprets these remarks the way you do. The types of sources you are using are of the same type you used to promote your fringe view of global warming.  Yes we can find biased uninformed commentary in WSJ editorials, but we do not use those sources because we aim for neutrality.  TFD (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yawn at the fringe view junk, i have brought this to the BLPN board Here mark nutley (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no sources for this thought, and I'm largely talking out of my ass, but I think that what he is talking about is the capitalist class. He is saying that the rich ruling class of Rome killed Jesus (which they did), not the Jews (who did not).  The Ruling class has evolved over 2000 years from the Emperors, dictators, and generals of ancient Rome, to the the fuedal lords of the middle ages, to the wealthy business men of today.  That's what he is talking about.  Economic decendents, not genetic decendents.  Sbrianhicks (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not matter what he might have meant, what matters is how people perceived it. Coming on top of his criticism of Israel and comparing them to Nazis what did he think people would get from a few minorities—the descendants of those who crucified Christ It caused a controversy and was widely covered, which makes it notable, which means it belongs in his BLP mark nutley (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The mainstream view is that he was talking about Roman imperialism and comparing it with Spanish and American imperialism and that neoconservative columnists have distorted the text to make Chavez unpopular with American liberals. We are not here to parrot fringe theories.  BTW, Jesus was killed by the Romans under Pontius Pilate.  TFD (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If that is the mainstream view i am sure you will have a source for it other than the leftist common dreams website? mark nutley (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the onus is on you, since you wish to include this material, to show that your view is mainstream which you have failed to do. The only reliable source you presented says, "Chavez, made remarks that were considered anti-Semitic by some in the international community" (my emphasis).  It does not say that this is the mainstream view.  TFD (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No the onus is on you to back the claim you just made. I have seven sources all of which meet wp:rs, you have one left wing website. Either back what you said or don`t say it mark nutley (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well no you do not, as has been pointed out to you by various editors here, at RSN and on your talk page. TFD (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strange that, the blp board has had 3 or 4? uninvolved guys weigh in, and they see no problem with this. And of course i already pointed out to Yworo on my talk page the relevant policy and the fact that he was wrong (as are you). So what you actually have here is wp:idontlikeit and no actual substance. Either give an actual real reason why this well cited, widely reported content should not be in this article mark nutley (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The BLPN discussion is not really helpful; and as Sandy is fond of saying recently, editor blocs can't overrule policy. Anti-semitism is just one of the long list of things his opponents have tried to smear Chavez with; from that perspective, a well-sourced discussion of it might fit into Media representation of Hugo Chavez, but not here. Rd232 talk 17:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Policy says this can go in here. I have no interest in your wp:or about people trying to smear him. He said it, the fact is not disputed. It was widely covered, that fact is not disputed. He has made many anti semitic remarks such as comparing the Israeli government to nazi`s, that fact is not disputed. This content is well sourced, is obviously notable and belongs in this article mark nutley (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When the writers you want to use get their theories accepted by the mainstream, we will include them. Until then they are just fringe views.  Even if we wish to include these views we must give more coverage to mainstream views.  TFD (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BLP also applies to talk pages. Please do not make unsourced accusations like "He has made many anti semitic remarks". Especially when your interpretation thereof seems coloured by a particular attitude to Israel (a topic capable of poisoning any Wikipedia discussion it touches, which is why I mostly avoid it like the plague). Rd232 talk 18:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem here is that, as usual, no Venezuela content can be added to any other article: it must be added to Hugo Chavez. Daughter articles? Topic articles? Not of interest. Well, just for a change, perhaps those desperate to see questionable content pushed into this article might try adding somewhere it might actually possibly belong, and then, when that has been hashed out there, see if an NPOV summary of that stabilised content is warranted here. That would be an encyclopedic and collaborative way of approaching these things. Rd232 talk 18:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD again with the fringe argument, must try harder. Rd232 no Venezuela content can be added to any other article makes no sense, chavez has made anti semitic remarks, and it is well documented so please do not think i am violating blp policy here. Simple fact is WP:WELLKNOWN it is. WP:RS it is, still waiting on a reason within policy which says this content which is about the subject should not be in this article mark nutley (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "no Venezuela content can be added to any other article makes no sense" - it's clear enough if you bother to read my entire comment. I'm saying that content like this is always brought immediately to this article, and then argued to death, even though logically if it actually belongs here it also belongs other, more specific places. Much more logical and less conflictual would be to start with the other places, achieve consensus there (made easier by having much more space to document the thing before running into UNDUE problems), and then come to this article. It never happens. Rd232 talk 20:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * mark nutley, we cannot build articles neoconservative op-eds and other fringe sources and not use reliable sources. That is what blogs are for.  TFD (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinions have no place here, please do not use an article talk page for presenting wp:or thanks. mark nutley (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I continually attempt to steer you toward reliable sources. If you choose not to read them then that is unfortunate.  TFD (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You have in fact not presented a single reliable source in this discussion, not that it matters. Policy says this content goes it, and that`s really the all she wrote mark nutley (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN. It's your job to make the case for inclusion. This is heading for an WP:RFC anyway, so you might as well try again to lay out as clearly as you can the case for inclusion. Rd232 talk 20:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The case is made. widespread coverage, books written about it, the perceived anti Semitism from chavez has drawn international scrutiny. All you have is? what exactly? mark nutley (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

O and from Burden ''The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article'' were exactly was my edit not covered in there? mark nutley (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So just so we're clear, you're specifically declining to clearly restate your case in sufficient detail to have a chance of persuading someone not already agreeing with you? Rd232 talk 20:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all, i am saying the case is already made. Anyone reading this section can see that, it is painfully obvious you want to do an rfc, but i see no reason for it. Policy is clear, the uninvolved editors at the blpn board have also agreed. I really don`t see why you wish to drag this out mark nutley (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (wp:npa PA redacted) Sbrianhicks (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon? Remove your remark please their is no need to make personal attacks, comment on content, not editor thanks mark nutley (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that saying I think you're a troll is considered a personal attack . . . And I will not remove my "remark" unless told to do so by other people.


 * By the way, an antisemitic socialist is like a teenage boy who dosen't masturbate or people who don't like Coldplay; they don't exist. Sbrianhicks (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, calling someone a troll is a personal attack and a violation of Wiki policy. Stop doing it.  And, whatever your thoughts on Chavez, you don't need to look any further than Norberto Ceresole to find an anti-Semitic socialist.JoelWhy (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the PA. I have readded the content with 16 references which is insane. Claiming undue for something over which books, newspaper articles and psychological journals have been written is pointless. Removal of well sourced content from this article is against policy and really has to stop. mark nutley (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Reinsert the content again and I will take you to ANI. You must stop inserting such contentious content into a BLP whilst under active discussion, with the Arbcom finding against you you really ought to know better. You have not made a clear case for inclusion, and it appears that you are unwilling to do so. In addition, you're inserting content largely about a couple of fringe commentators' interpretations of Chavez' views into a section about Human Rights, where it is even more COATRACKy than somewhere clearly relating to his views. I've already suggested you start by going to Media representation of Hugo Chavez, a suggestion you appear to have simply ignored. Rd232 talk 10:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Are toy saying jews don`t have human rights? Or anti semitic statements are not a violation of them? Your suggestion to have it in Media representation of Hugo Chavez is pointless as this is not media representation of him. This is about statements he has made. Are the book references media representations? is the psychological journal source media representation? ANI may be a good idea, as yourself and TFD are edit warring out reliably sourced content for no reason other than wp:idontlikeit now i have asked you countless times for a reason within policy why this content ought not be in this article, you have said it is undue, obviously not or there would not be books, articles, and papers written on it. Were is your reason within policy to edit war this out? mark nutley (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I see, there seems to be a single quote, that may have been distorted or taken out of context. Then, don't use the quote itself as a reference, but the reactions about it: who considers it to be antisemitic, and who considers it to be directed towards romans and taken out of context. And if this led to specific actions beyond the press, all the better.

And whenever Chavez is antisemitic or not, there's an easy way to tell. Is there some other quote on the topic, to provide confirmation? Has he taken actions against the jews as a group, beyond mere words? MBelgrano (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I was not using the quote as a reference (there is no objection over the quote as we all know he said this), what i wrote was In a speech which many have regarded as Anti-Semitic he said {quote here) ref 1 to a book ref 2 to an newspaper article. He has made other remarks many deem anti semitic such as calling Israeli's Nazi`s. It would be easier for you to judge the content Here and look at the 16 references. mark nutley (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, I had another look at your sandbox. Let me give an example of what's so unacceptable: the unexplained half sentence "And for adopting an Anti-Semitic policy within government" is footnoted to four offline books without further explanation. That's just not good enough. You need to provide details and quotes to show that those books say what you actually claim - and even then, I'm not sure I'd trust your use of sourcing. You have current highly relevant sanctions from the climate change topic area, which you may technically have breached as they refer to "any biography of a living person or any climate change article"., and These require you to run sources by an established contributor, a restriction which if it is to have much meaning must require that contributor to have access to the source. Did you do this? Rd232 talk 13:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And this article has what to do with climate change? And that restriction was lifted and has been changed. Is it so difficult to look up the book titles on amazon to see whom published them? None are self published it this is what worries you. I will put quote`s within the references if you wish, how does one do this? mark nutley (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The restriction is phrased "any biography of a living person or any climate change article" - this does not obviously exclude this article, even if (because of the Climate Change Probation source) it doesn't definitely include it. And from the log it has not obviously been lifted or changed. We could ask for clarification, I suppose. And I'm not sure how you got from my comment that I had an issue at this stage with who published the books - that's a secondary issue, because it's not clear at this point what the books are actually saying. You have no need to worry about how to include quotes in references for inclusion in the article - you have a sandbox to play with, put the quotes in there. Rd232 talk 16:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You will find the change in the sanctions on the CC enforcement page. If i put the quotes in my sandbox but not the refs then how shall other editors who come along know what they say? I have done one, can you look in the sandbox to see if it is correctly done please? It is ref 11 and i just put the text after the page number mark nutley (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well you surely can't be claiming the notes of subsequent blocks against you override the previous sanctions - so please provide a specific link or diff. And you can can perfectly well expand the content in the body of your sandbox and footnote it appropriately. The half-sentence you've provided so far merely heightens fears of WP:SYN. Rd232 talk 17:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing the quote and articles/discussions related to this quote, I believe that the statement is not (necessarily) overtly anti-Semitic. His mentioning of Bolivar really doesn't fit in with Jews. That being said, in a Catholic country when you refer to the people who killed Christ, there's only one group of people who spring to mind. That doesn't mean there isn't reason to suspect Chavez of being an anti-Semite (or, at least, allowing such a perception to continue because it suits his political purposes.) In recent years, Venezuelan police have raided Jewish centers, but I am not aware of any direct link to Chavez regarding this. And, Chavez has closely aligned himself with people who are clearly anti-Semites. But, I don't see any smoking gun here.JoelWhy (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Rd232 i told you were it is, go find it. And excuse the hell out of me for only writing a half sentence and then asking you if this was the right way to do it, your lack of good faith is duly noted. Joel, it is the reactions to the quote which are notable, and there are quite a few books (all from reputable publishers) which delve into the anti semitic behaviour exhibited by chavez. That`s the funny thing about this entire thread, it is not just the quote it is comparing the Israeli government to Nazis, forging close ties with holocaust deniers, perhaps from political expediency i don`t know. I do know that before he came to power there were roughly 30k jews in country, that is now estimated to be 10k, of course the government there knows as they raided a synagogue and took cd`s with the names and address of every jew there. It is this sort of carry on which has lead to these allegations. And when guys are writing papers in Current Psychological Research & Reviews saying It also accords with the strong adaptation of anti-Semitism as the official policy of Hugo Chavez and the oil-producing giant then it has become quite notable. mark nutley (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * i) "i told you were it is, go find it." - and I've just told you that I looked, and couldn't find it. ii) I already told you how to do it, and you ignored me: your way is bad because it makes less likely for you to provide sufficient details for your assertion that your sources support your text to be verified. And indeed, your initial attempt provided insufficient detail, and such as it was, looked somewhat WP:SYNTHy. iii) the rest is your unsourced opinion, which I think we can agree is irrelevant. Rd232 talk 19:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your quote comes from an article by Irving Louis Horowitz, who runs Transaction Publishers in Current Psychology, a magazine that is not peer-reviewed. Could you please provide sources from peer-reviewed articles or books published in the academic press and stop providing WP:FRINGE neoconservative sources.  TFD (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, as soon as you show me the policy which says. A Sources must be peer reviewed. B a source is suddenly not reliable because you call it neoconservative mark nutley (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that sources be peer reviewed. The overwhelming majority of sources for this article are not peer-reviewed, nor should anyone expect them to be for a biography of a living person.JoelWhy (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:NPOV: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give "undue weight" to the Flat Earth theory."  Even if we were to include views of this nature, we would first have to give wide coverage to mainstream views.  TFD (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See wp:rs the sources are fine :) Were does your idea that some have considered statements and actions made by chavez a minority view? I get the strangest feeling you have not actually looked at the sources in my edit and just did a blind revert. Otherwise you would not be saying i need to provide academic sources as quite a few of them are. mark nutley (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Were (sic) does [my] idea that some have considered statements and actions made by chavez a minority view?" I did not say that.  The onus is on you to show that this is a significant view and you have provided no worthwhile sources at all.
 * "I get the strangest feeling you have not actually looked at the sources in my edit and just did a blind revert." I have looked at some of them but they are unacceptable because of the source.  It is not up to us to evaluate the opinions themselves, merely their notability.
 * "Otherwise you would not be saying i (sic) need to provide academic sources as quite a few of them are." No, you do not provide academic sources, you provide op-eds and popular books.  You insist on ignoring mainstream opinion and submitting fringe theories.  It is your right to hold the opinions you do, but please do not claim that they have any acceptance.
 * TFD (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

So you did not look at the sources at all then. Their is no requirement within policy to show that this is a significant view, only that it is notable. Which i have. ABC-CLIO John Wiley & Sons Praeger Publishers Sussex Academic Press University of Michigan Press all of these are academic publishers, you really must try harder mate mark nutley (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is irrelevant how good your sources are if they don't support your text. You have failed to demonstrate that they do, and you have Arbcom sanctions against because of your misuse of sources. This discussion increasingly provides support for the thesis that you are a net negative for the project. Do you want to start providing support for the opposite thesis? Then expand your sandbox with details and quotes from your sources, such that your claims (not that of Publisher X) can be verified with reference to the sources given. Rd232 talk 19:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I was just passing and saw this discussion. However, mark nutley, perhaps an observation from an outsider might help? It appears to me that the quote under discussion would lead many reasonable people to have suspicions of anti-semitic tendencies. Probably many of the people who appear to disagree with you actually would agree with that also. But just looking at the problem as a WP problem, the issue is that there is certainly room for doubt. Do you agree that there is at least some lack of clarity in the quote itself and some lack of consensus in interpretation? But, when it comes to making strong claims about a living person, there should be no reasonable room for doubt at all, don't you agree?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, marknutley has declared himself retired, so is unlikely to reply. Rd232 talk 10:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In a personal level, I agree, the sentence may lead to confusion, more if stripped from context. However, we shouldn't "explain" the meaning, but rather point how do different souces explain it. That, if we do it at all. I think that if this quote gave room to specific actions (such as Chávez being accused of antisemitism at some place, and defending himself from such charges), then we may explain this in the article. If things haven't gone beyond the press or mere words ("A says X", "B answers Y", "A replies that Z"), it may be better to leave it aside. Chavez, as all politicians, engages on such exchanges of quotes on a daily basis. MBelgrano (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * At the time Chavez made these remarks, he was defended by the Confederation of Jewish Associations of Venezuela, the American Jewish Committee and the American Jewish Congress, who all agreed that the comments were not directed at Jews: "All three groups said he was aiming his barbs at the white oligarchy that has dominated the region since the colonial era, pointing to his reference to Bolivar as the clearest evidence of his intent". To argue that he meant anything else flies in the face of all the evidence, and of common sense. RolandR (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Which, if it leads us to any conclusion, tends to point to coverage in Media representation of Hugo Chavez, in terms of attempts to portray Chavez as anti-semitic, against defense by X Y Z. Rd232 talk 17:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Unlock
Unlock the page now ! --93.82.1.233 (talk) 06:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is semi-protected. Create an account and you'll be able to edit the page in a few days. Rd232 talk 13:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That´s completely wrong. --188.23.181.181 (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been semi-protected virtually continuously since December 2006, except for a couple of periods in 2007. As a high-profile and controversial WP:BLP, that's not unusual. signup is that way. Rd232 talk 10:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear Chávez
Yep, you all heard it right: Chávez goes nuclear. See here: I wonder myself if we could add that in here... or an editor will call the website "unreliable" or "biased"? --Lecen (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What can we add to the article? "Roger Noriega writing in a magazine whose editor-in-chief is Moises Naim said that it's not clear what Venezuela's hiding, but it's definitely hiding something" :) JRSP (talk) 05:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably Media representation of Hugo Chavez fodder. There doesn't seem to be a Nuclear power in Venezuela article (cf Template:Nuclear_power_by_country); there may be enough sources around to make one. Rd232 talk 07:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer your question: it is clearly identified as being in the section "ARGUMENT". Ergo it is an op-ed (as noted, from Roger Noriega), not a news article. Rd232 talk 07:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We would need to wait until these opinions are commented upon in news articles at which point we will be able to determine the credibility that they have received. TFD (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "We"? Are you judges to determine what is and what is not credible? --Lecen (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that is why we need reliable sources to determine what is credible. TFD (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And Foreign Policy it isn't reliable? --Lecen (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, this op-ed from Foreign Policy is neither informative nor reliable. (Nor is the "Dictator fashion" article that it links to, before you ask). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * RS. Rd232 talk 14:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Noriega is pushing the same sort of stories that other neoconservatives did in the run up to the Iraq war. TFD (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not taking any chances. I'm practicing my duck and cover drills in case Nuclear Chavez actually is "up to something". -- Jrtayloriv (talk)
 * I'm practicing duck and cover in case Roger Noriega is up to something :) Rd232 talk 16:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Spanish Judge says that the ETA and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia are manufacturing arms in Venezuela." Here: I believe that is not... "reliable" or "credible", right? --Lecen (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources have stated that a Spanish judge said that, but per WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM we don't need to give that undue weight, and should focus on more broad and important things (macroeconomic policies, social services, military spending, the Venezuelan opposition, human rights, etc.). However that might be appropriate for very brief (i.e. 1 sentence) mention in Colombia-Venezuela relations. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (a) what relevance does this have to the Hugo Chavez article? Chavez can't stop the AUC operating in western Venezuela either, and nobody's accusing them of being friends. b) you're aware of the 1989 ETA agreement between Venezuela and Spain, yes? Rd232 talk 16:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course. Is well known the close relationship between the FARCs and Chavez and the latter staunch support for the terrorist group. It is well known that the FARCs has free pass in Venezuela territory. Is well known that Venezuelan weapons were found with FARCs operatives. Oh... those are all coincidences. --Lecen (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually these connections are not "well known" just existing in neoconservative writing about Venezuela. Mainstream writing, including sources critical of Chavez, do not make this connection.  Ten years ago, they were saying there was a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.  I guess it is based on a view that the United States government is so kind and decent that all people opposed to it must be part of a secret conspiracy orchestrated by some truly evil person.  TFD (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that's YOU who is saying that they are neoconservatives. In fact, no matter from what country, or what newspaper the source came, if it does not portray Chavez in a positive light none of you accept it. This article is a mess and one big fat joke and lie because of editors like you guys who are far more concerned on pursuing a political agenda then on contributing to an enciclopaedia. --Lecen (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks, please. The point is that this op-ed is as useful to the article as a leftist opinion piece hailing Chávez. JRSP (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Roger Noriega (see the article) visiting fellow at the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute. He has previously served as a U.S. diplomat and policy maker, specializing in Western Hemisphere Affairs. He served as the Senior Policy Advisor and Alternate U.S. Representative at the U.S. Mission to the OAS from 1990 through 1993, and as Senior Advisor for Public Information at the OAS from 1993 to 1994.  Prior to that, he served as Press Secretary and Legislative Assistant for Congressman Bob Whittaker (R-Kan.), U.S. House of Representatives, from 1983 until 1986. President Bush also appointed Noriega to the Board of Directors of the Inter-American Foundation.  As Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs under President George W. Bush,[2] Ambassador Noriega was responsible for managing U.S. foreign policy and promoting U.S. interests in the region.
 * Neutral?
 * TFD (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As with other topics, I suggest to include it if there are clear real-world consequences to point; if things haven't gone beyond the "X says that Chavez etc etc" at the press, it would be better to leave it aside. The controversy of Iraq and their imaginary Weapons of Mass Destruction was clearly beyond that level, any similar claim about Chavez (whenever it's actually true or not) should develop into a similar state to be mentioned here. Otherwise, it's just one of countless rumors and claims going around such a highly public image. MBelgrano (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Chavez admits that Venezuela is beginning a nuclear program. The Estado de São Paulo, the largest Brazilian newspaper, has given the information that Venezuela is beginning a nuclear program with the help of Iran. As usual, the government says that is for "peaceful" purposes. Here: I believe that is also not reliable enough? Right? Nor "credible"? --Lecen (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Again that is an opinion piece by Roger Noriega who I just discussed. If the mainstream begins to discuss the issue then we may include it.  At that time we will be able to assess the credibility that the claim has.  TFD (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not just an opinion piece. It's the same opinion piece (Noriega's Foreign Policy article), translated into Portuguese. Rd232 talk 14:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said, it's just something said in the press and nothing came out of it. If Chávez is really up to something, is there are real evidences to suspect so, we wouldn't have to wait much before more things happen, and then we would be able to describe the whole dispute. But the other chance is that he's not, time passes, some other president replaces him, and no nuclear dispute surfaces at all. After all, Obama is already facing difficult times as it is without starting a new "weapons of mass destruction" fiasco like the one that complicated Bush so much; he won't start to harass Venezuela about it unless there's something really solid to justify so. The best approach for us is to stay one step behind the events, and report them as they happen. MBelgrano (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Religion
I have read on http://thebutterstick.wordpress.com/2007/11/07/chavez-preaches-wiccan-book-to-venezuelans/ that he has turned himself to the practice of Wicca as his religion. 123.231.20.174 (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course. That's the site that says of itself "The Butter Stick, sometimes referred to as the BS, is the grandest fake news site on planet earth". And the parody you note was publishedf three years ago. You're right, let's keep the article updated with current reliable information. RolandR (talk) 10:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Typos
In September 2010, Chávez announced the llocation of 876 million bolivars ($203 million) for community projects around the country,


 * should be obvious —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenmomentum (talk • contribs) 08:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks. —WWoods (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Version 0.8
Regrettably, this talk page remains Venezuela Central, so... Could people respond at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Venezuela about the inclusion of Presidency of Hugo Chávez in WP:Version 0.8. Thanks. Rd232 talk 11:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: it's also not too late to improve this article for the 0.8 DVD release, if it's done by early next week. Rd232 talk 17:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is this essay written from a negative perspective from the subject of the essay?
Why is this essay written from a negative perspective from the subject of the essay?

Even if one doesn't agree with the ideas and ideology of a person, country, or group, a encyclopedia (an intellectually unbiased medium), should be from the perspective of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnywalk85 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead
This is oddly par for the course for this page. Someone (me) makes an effort to improve the page, no long-term contributors say peep about it for a while or contribute anything relevant, but the minute the relevant problem tag is removed on the basis that it's no longer need, the tag is slapped back on. Besides which "Lead hasn't been improved at all. It remains heavily biased and far too long." is rudely dismissive as well as inaccurate and unhelpful. The lead is not "far too long" - there's a lot of ground to cover, it could be marginally shorter but it's fine. As for "heavily biased"? Well if it's that bad, don't you think you should fix it or explain the problem? Rd232 talk 18:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no dicsussion of any of these issues on this discussion page. Unless reasons are provided for the tags, they should be removed.

Before replacing them the editor should explain why issues need to be addressed. TFD (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, before arbitrarily removing the tags, the editor should obtain a consensus. That wasn't done (and there is no consensus.)


 * I haven't bothered working to fix it because I'm tired of wasting my time trying to bring some neutrality to this article only to have it transformed into more pro-Chavez propaganda. (This is not directed at you, just at the general statement regarding this article.) I spent a substantial amount of time researching and constructing the crime section only to have gutted to become a fantasy piece. Like I said in the past, if this page is to remain dedicated to praising Chavez, then the tags have to remain warning anyone reading it, lest they be tricked into thinking this article meets Wiki guidelines.


 * If you want specifics, start with this sentence: "Detractors within the Organization of American States, European Union, United Nations, U.S. State Department, and others, criticize Chávez for alleged human rights violations, while supporters point to improvements in constitutional and legal rights, poverty reduction, health care, women's rights, and the treatment of indigenous peoples under his presidency." This really captures the tone of the entire article -- diminishing criticisms and emphasizing supposed achievements.JoelWhy (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

JoelWhy (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems neutral to me, because he explains how supporters and detractors describe him. Can you propose a more neutral phrasing of the sentence?  I can post it to the NPOV noticeboard for broader input.  TFD (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * " arbitrarily removing" tags - more dismissiveness, which I don't appreciate. I already explained that I revised and improved the lead a while ago, and then waited some time to see if anyone would respond. No-one did, so I eventually removed the relevant tag. Furthermore, since the tag was applied to a substantially different version of the lead, it doesn't need consensus to remove, since tag justification should apply to the current article, not a substantially different previous version. Rd232 talk 18:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The bias starts from word-one: "Detractors". A more appropriate term would be "critic". Then you have "alleged" human rights violations, while the laundry list of supposed improvements are presented as if they are fact rather than opinion.  Some of it is fact.  But, "improvements...in legal rights", for example, is definitely in dispute considering that many of the supposed "improvements" only appear on paper (as detailed by Human Rights Watch and other organizations.)  Also, it appears as if the only criticism of Chavez has been his human rights record, yet he has achieved a long list of improvements.JoelWhy (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It would seem to me that since the sentence is unsourced, it would be best to remove it. I think the intention was to show that Chavez is controversial, he faces strong opposition from some quarters but has strong support from others, not that anyone was trying to give greater weight to one side.  TFD (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The sentence puts the human rights issues high up in the lead, naming a number of important institutions raising concerns about them, whilst the improvements are merely attributed to "supporters". The topic of the sentence can certainly be handled better, but it's fairly even-handed in its current imperfection. Rd232 talk 11:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * With respect to the length of the lead, it's supposed to be short no matter how much the article needs to cover. Just keep leaving out detail until it's short enough. Warren Dew (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "short" is relative. See LEAD (though the meaning of "number of paragraphs" obviously interacts with their length; a number here are quite short). Rd232 talk 00:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The paragraphs in the current lead are of average to long length. For an article of this length, LEAD says there should be 2-3 paragraphs.  There are currently 5 paragraphs.  That means the lead is about twice as long as it should be.  That justifies keeping the tag there until it's fixed.Warren Dew (talk) 05:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the first 3 paragraphs are of normal length for a large lead, and the last 2 relatively short. Rd232 talk 09:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the article is fairly long and the lead reflects that. Also, I would argue its length is based upon its detail which all happens to be notable. But I wouldn't say it is too long; and anyhow, length is not a big issue right now. More importantly, I think the content is fine, it represents sources present in the article, is well written and clear and addresses the concerns of critics by stating them clearly and without any judgement. ValenShephard (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is tediously too long (11,000 words from about 6,000 a few months ago), goes into detail that doesn't belong here (belongs in sub-articles) while neglecting detail that does belong here (Foreign policy, domestic policy, crime, corruption, democracy, etc), and the lead is most certainly much too long (I haven't begun to document the article POV yet, only discussing length here). Most readers will not care about the level of detail given in the lead on some Venezuelan issues, but will want to know some info that we've conveniently left out-- like how his popularity is declining in Venezuela as a sample (I don't care, but something has to be there that reflects what most people hear and know about Chavez, and right now we have obscure details of Venezuelan politics that only we know and care about). The purpose of the lead is to provide a broad overview that will entice the reader to read more, but short and simple-- it's not to convey a POV about the subject. Methinks that the article is so bad that the lead is trying to be the article here. And talk about POV, why the detail about the caracazo in the lead of Chavez's article (that was eons ago), mentioning those deaths but not deaths attributed to Chavez in his various debacles, coups, fiascos? And why do we care what he promised when elected in 1998? That was 13 years ago!! Excess detail and POV lead in a too-long POV article that now relies heavily on one source. Please revert to an earlier version; the article has seriously deteriorated in the last six months. Joelwhy, I removed the tag about the lead being too long because the entire article is too long and it's very poorly written, while the significant POV and outdatedness is much more important now. I hope that's OK, but if we use the Multiple issues template, there are about a dozen of them now, and the fact that the article is POV will get lost among the other problems, and I think it doesn't serve our readers to know that the lead is too long, while it does serve them to know the article is out of date and POV. (I read this section of the talk page last, so just noticed you had placed the tag and the lead was discussed.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 10:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. Length of the lead (and article in general) isn't an important issue compared to POV.  I'm out of town for the rest of the week with spotty internet connection, but I'll check back in next week.JoelWhy (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hugo Chávez requests the Parliament to allow him to rule be decree
Hugo Chávez has requested to the Parliament the ability to rule by decree. Source: This is one thing I like about him: no matter what happens, Chávez keeps moving foward toward his path to dictatorship. And as usual, Chávez-lovers around will say that that is not a big deal. --Lecen (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (i) you've been asked repeatedly to stop labelling your opponents in this manner. The way you've slipped it in there is pretty much "when did you stop beating your wife?" territory. (ii) decree powers are always a big deal, but they're hardly novel in Venezuelan democratic history: Enabling_Law. Rd232 talk 13:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I predicted. "If it's in Venezuela, that's ok." --Lecen (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I said "decree powers are always a big deal". Besides - no-one cares about your opinion or mine: WP:NOTFORUM. About the only thing worth saying is that the move was predictable, and indeed predicted. Rd232 talk 13:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Who said I want to chat? I'm wondering if someone will bother to add that in this article. --Lecen (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It should certainly go in the Presidency subarticle, but probably best wait a few days til it's clear what happens. Rd232 talk 13:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If it's added, it should point why Chávez is requesting that (see here). There's a flood that left 120.000 people homeless, which the portuguese article linked at the begining fails to mention. We may point those who think it's correct and those who think that Chávez is "taking advantage" of it, but the fact is that the state of emergency exists, it's not a deception or an imaginary threat. Ultimately, it would be up to the reader to read that, weight both the flood and Chávez political style, and decide whenever it was right or wrong. MBelgrano (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The flood is just a ploy to justify Chavez' commie takeover of the government. Everyone knows that the Commies in Cuba were conspiring with Chavez to create heavy rains so they could do this. Source: . Now we see what their demonic intentions were a year later. Of course, the Chavez-lovers will say it's no big deal that they happened to be working on a flood-ray a year earlier. Of course, we can't talk about this in the article because Eva Golinger is orchestrating a conspiracy to whitewash the article. Peace, from Miami. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "This user is part of the Countering Systemic Bias WikiProject". Jrtayloriv, I saw your "work" in the FARC-EP's article. Shame on you for supporting quasi-dictators and terrorist groups that kidnap and murder innocent civilians. Shame on you. --Lecen (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose you're talking about removing hundreds of unsourced statements from the FARC article, and adding information backed by scholarly sources? And then there was the photo I added of child soldiers in FARC (to support them, of course), and the discussion of them kidnapping people for ransom. Yes, that was all truly terrible of me. But I'm taking sides now, instead of trying to accurately report things; and I've chosen your side, as you can see above. Let's forget past disagreements and work together to expose Chavez for the flood-raying dictator that he truly is. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Lecen, please stop attacking other users. At some point, after repeated warnings, this becomes disruptive enough to require action. Article talk pages are there to discuss changes to the associated article, and nothing else. Rd232 talk 18:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What?! And I am obliged to hear all this nonsense about helping people affected by flood? Chávez has been granted the power to rule by decree for more than a year (!!!!) and the reason is due to a flood? Can you look into the mirror and say this without laughing? Can you at least try it? This article makes no sense. No matter what is said in the real world, there are editors who have been able to maintain in here a world of fantasy. This man has been in power for more than 11 years (!!) and has corrupted his own country to become a dictator. He has destroyed his nation's economy and democracy. He has supported and financed a terrorist group in Colombia. Nothing of these is mentioned anywhere in this article. Until when this farce will remain? --Lecen (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, yes. If Chavez uses weak arguments, simply report them. If the situation is so clear-cut as you think it is, readers will understand so by themselves, and his use of weak arguments would simply turn against Chávez credibility. See Neutral point of view/FAQ. By the way, even if you don't like the currect state of the article you shouldn't use such an aggresive tone to report your critics. MBelgrano (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think "weak arguments" is the correct phrase to use here. His proposed decree powers will include regulations for telecommunications, the banking system, information technology, and the military.  It's not even a clever ruse -- it's an overt power-grab on the eve that he loses complete control of the legislature.  Short of carrying around a sign that says "I want to be a dictator", I'm really not sure what else Chavez can do for certain segments of the left-wing to realize that he is NOT one of them.JoelWhy (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Many people just don't realise how this sort of thing is really not unusual in Venezuela; read some details about Carlos Andres Perez' first term - it'll make your hair stand on end. But really, we're into WP:NOTFORUM territory. Rd232 talk 15:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The point in here is not whether editors around believe Chávez is or not a dictator (or at least, a "dictator-wannabe"). The point is that we have an article that is simply hiding facts. And spare me of "writing for the enemy" blah blah. I use Portuguese-written sources from Brazil, a country whose president supports and regard as friends men such as Chavez, Fidel Castro, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other scoundrels. Sorry if I like democracy, human rights, civil rights, freedom of Speech and I dispise dictators. I know that my point of view is clearly biased and that's why I never dared to write in this article. However, we must be honest. This article is a farce. It does not give the real view on the subject. --Lecen (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with your sentiments -- but, it's precisely BECAUSE this article is a farce that we need more editors working on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs) 19:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, my... Did someone saw this ? What's next? He'll be called the 21th century Robin Hood? --Lecen (talk) 04:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What seems to be the problem with this edit? I don't see any substantial difference with previous version. JRSP (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Living in Caracas, he saw more of the endemic poverty faced by working class Venezuelans, something that made him further committed to social justice" You should definitely call him Robin Hood. In fact, I'd like to see your explanation to why he beleives that my staying power forever, ruling the country as dictator, that will help in any way curb poverty? --Lecen (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw this yesterday. It's just par for the course, really.  But, I don't feel like getting into yet another pointless battle to correct overt bias in an article that is otherwise replete with overt bias.JoelWhy (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that we simply archive this thread and, if needed, open a new one with a new approach. Many users are giving in to the temptation of stating their opinions about Hugo Chávez himself, rather than on the article about him (such as discussing wich information should be added or reformulated, and in which way), and the talk page is not for this. MBelgrano (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is a waste of everyone's time, and is not improving the article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. While some of the comments haven't been appropriate, some of them are on point.  There is no harm in keeping the conversation available for public viewing (unless there's a simple way of parsing out the extraneous information.)JoelWhy (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

While I am aware that some people are concerned about Mr. Chavez's apparent or alleged attempt at dictatorship, this page is not the place to discuss it. Archived. &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 00:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe you did not read the discussion. The problem is not who believes or not that Chavez is creating a dictatorship but why information on his actions to erode Venezuelan democracy are not present in the article. --Lecen (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason not to put the decree item into the article. After all, it was widely reported in the news, so it is notable and should be put into the article. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 00:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There are two sides to controversial people, the good and the bad. To simply mention the good is to ignore the bad; to simply mention the bad is to ignore the good. This is the essence of NPOV, and by simply mentioning one point of view and not the other, one favors the mentioned POV at the expense of the unmentioned one. This is why I have reverted unexplained reverts of items that show Chavez in a bad light, and why I have left alone (and touched up) items that show him in a good light. Also, anything that's fit to be mentioned should be mentioned. &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 01:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue of Chavez's rule by decree-- and more importantly, how that came to pass, is not included here, and that is part of the POV. This is a topic that should be covered here. How he gained control of all branches of the gov't is not discussed as it needs to be. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is one source which I think is the most balanced and least polemical dealing with the new Enabling Law which you are talking about. It uses balanced language and includes 5 paragraphs dealing with oppositional disagreements over this law. ValenShephard (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Presumably you understand that a multitude of sources have other things to say about Chavez's use of enabling acts and rule by decreee, that will need to be reflected in the article? Venezuelanalysis gives one side of the story; there are others, backed by many reliable sources.  Ignoring this issue won't make it go away or result in a neutral article.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is just one article yes, but a good starting point. The reason I chose is because unlike some more mainstream articles it offers historical and political context (which you asked for and it explains how the enabling law is constitutional and can be recalled, a fact often missed) and takes into account the criticism (without judgement or manipulation) of the opposition in about 5 paragraphs right about half way through. ValenShephard (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The laws of most countries allow for the executive to assume some legislative poweres. For example in the U.S. the president may make recess appointments, in Commonwealth countries, the executive may make Orders-in-Council, and anti-terrorism and war legislation allows the executive to assume emergency powers, e.g., the War Measures Act.  Whether or not this is "rule by decree" is a matter of opinion.  TFD (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Context
The article currently has zero text that I can find discussing how Chavez came to have the power he has in Venezuela today, and how that led to his consolidation of power, rule by decree, excessive use of cadenas, and excessive use of enabling acts. Until that is provided here-- and it is covered by every reliable source, take your pick-- the average reader will have no understanding of Venezuela and Chavez today. The Venezuelan people chose to abstain from voting en masse and handed him that power-- he is not a dictator, the abstention by voters allowed him to consolidate power. The failure to discuss this is part of the most glaring POV in this article, and is the incidentally the question I most often hear from the average gringo who doesn't understand what happened in Venezuela. All reliable sources cover that issue; Wiki leaves it out. This article cannot be neutral without a discussion of consolidation of power in the executive and deterioration in the democracy, and control of the judiciary. Take your pick of reliable sources-- they all cover it, as I documented long ago in my list of sources. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article I linked to has the political and historical context surrounding the granting of this enabling law and that is all it promised. ValenShephard (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm
I was not aware that the food item was promoted by a banned sockpuppeter. But, still, the food item probably should be looked at and checked for notability and, if it's too POV, should be neutralized. &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 01:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The food policy is already extensively discussed, with much better sourcing, at Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez government. The sock puppeteer is obsessed with the idea of overemphasizing certain aspects of it here, for some reason. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that it is mentioned in the econ. policy article is not a reason to exclude it from this article. Policies enacted by Chavez are completely appropriate in the article about Chavez.JoelWhy (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue is not adequately covered here, according to due weight, and who first added the text or "promoted" it isn't relevant; a discussion of the serious food shortages and appropriation of private property in Venezuela belongs here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Article has become private property
Recent edits have once more revealed that the article is owned by staunch Chávez's supporters. Not even mention of the Venezuelan Parliament having granted enough power to Chávez rule by decree can be added. And please don't come tell me that because it was written "absolute power". If a word was the problem, you would have simply changed the sentence a bit, not erased it completely.

The reasons given to them vary in nature but can be summed in a simple sentence: "We will not allow any kind of edit to the article that we consider an offense to Chávez."

Is that ridiculous? Certainly. But is has gone too far. If the purpose of this article is to simply be used as a propaganda tool, shouldnt' we simply add one huge link to the official Chavez's website? --Lecen (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. Some editors just have a problem accepting that Hugo Chavez is not the only Venezuela article on Wikipedia (look at the way some insist on using its talk page - as if WP:VEN didn't exist!), and that WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE still applies to WP:BLP subjects you really, really don't like. Rd232 talk 08:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think a far bigger problem is that this article is largely based not upon books that study Chavez (i.e. those of Bart Jones etc), but upon internet articles pulled from all over the place. I'm gradually attempting to rectify this, and I ask that we all try and keep this article as neutral as possible.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Better (more academic/comprehensive) sources will be an improvement, but in doing that watch that this article doesn't get out of sync with the related/daughter articles (Military career of Hugo Chavez etc) - it's best to update both, and probably best to update/improve the daughter articles first, before updating the summary here. Rd232 talk 20:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been primarily updating this article first, but if I get time I will go and add to the more in-depth articles afterward.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC))
 * And that approach was wrong, and what caused this article to grow too long and become more POV: see Bart Jones reviews below, and Jones is by no means a scholarly source. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As there doesn't appear to have been any particular explanation of what it is that is non-neutral in this article, I shall remove the tag.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Absolutely, positively not. This article is, if anything, more POV than before, and there has not at all been a consensus reached to remove this tag.  As stated in  Tag is to remain on this article until the extreme bias is removed.JoelWhy (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it best if we start a new conversation on the nature of POV in this article then. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC))
 * I think it best if you read archives before removing tags. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have digital access to pretty much all English language journals (dozens mention Chavez, looking a quick search) so if I have some time during the next few months I will engage again (after a very busy period away from wiki) and try to add some of the information here. I hope it doesn't disappoint some editors here that these journals concur with and expand upon statements already sourced here. Hope that helps. ValenShephard (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The Intro is too long
Hey guys, I'm thinking that the introduction to this page is simply too long, maybe we should work on a shorter alternative? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Sorted, the introduction is now slightly shorter. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC))
 * The intro is still too long, but worse, is poorly written and focuses on outdated or issues of less relevance at the expense of more current and relevant issues. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Too Much Trivia
I think I've been pretty clear on my position that this article is heavily POV. However, since I don't think we're making any headway on that issue, perhaps we can tackle some of the less-controversial content in this article.

There is far too much trivial information in this article. For example, as I've mentioned several times in the past, the paragraph about Chavez' Twitter account should either be completely deleted, or, at most, reduced to a single sentence listing how many followers he has.

Also, throughout the article, there is far too much trivial descriptions of people, locations, etc. For example: "In the mid 1960s, Hugo, his brother and their grandmother moved to the city of Barinas so that the boys could attend what was then the only high school in the rural state, the Daniel O'Leary High School, named after the Irish revolutionary who had made South America his home." Do we really need to know the name of his high school, let alone the significance of the person who the school was named after? (For the record, much of this added content is very well written, and I appreciate the work that went into it, but it's the type of trivia you expect to find in a person's full biography, not an encyclopedic entry.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs) 00:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Being the individual responsible for the recent added content, I thank you for your kind comments. I can certainly appreciate why you highlight what can seem to be superfluous information inserted in the text. Whilst I agree that it is not entirely necessary, I feel that it does make the article more generally readable, after all is not "In the mid 1960s, Hugo, his brother and their grandmother moved to the city of Barinas so that the boys could attend what was then the only high school in the rural state, the Daniel O'Leary High School, named after the Irish revolutionary who had made South America his home" more readable than simply "He went to high school in Barinas" ? I believe that it also helps to show more of a context from which Chavez came (his high school was named after a revolutionary, possible influence on him methinks). (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Where someone went to high school, their twitter accounts, etc., is important for biographies. TFD (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the twitter accounts, however where a person went to high school is an extremely important part of a biographical article. Secondary schooling can be a very useful indicator in determining a person's social class, amongst other things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by jrtayloriv (talk • contribs)
 * I agree, especially when what he did in his early life compliments or links in with his later life, it makes it notable. Twitter is an odd issue. It seems to have some notability, for me anyway, because from Chavez's own rhetoric it seems to make up part of his political strategy which is notable if only for its uniqueness. ValenShephard (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is too much outdated or no longer relevant info, too much quote farming, and too little use of summary style; an article that has this much to say must rely on summary style and be a broad overview, focusing on the most relevant issues. As of now, it doesn't even discuss most relevant issues, while going into excess detail on older parts of the story that belong in sub-articles. A 6,000 to 7,000-word article that covers all relevant issues might be something to aim for: now we have 11,000 words, without a discussion of current domestic and foreign policy issues. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

infobox pic
The interview is quite informative http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/8733680.stm - Off2riorob (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Please, when you provide links explain what will we find in them and how does it relate to the article, don't leave just the link. I'm at a computer without sound, so I can't see the video until many hours later.


 * As for the infobox pic, the previous one was better (but I'm open to other suggestions). Seeing clearly the face is a good thing for the infobox photo, but it should also be a "natural" photo, with both the subject and a non-distracting background. A deliverate cropping of the photo to cut his head from it is a bad alternative, and should be used only when we are short of photos of a given subject (and this one is even rotated from the original). MBelgrano (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that the current cropped infobox image is great. I was the one that brought in the new image (of Chavez with his arm in the air, waving, in a red shirt), because it was vertically rather than horizontally positioned, soemthing that aethetically works far better in an infobox. However, the cropping is definately an improvement. Well done to whomever is responsible! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC))
 * No worries, thanks. His head hasn't been cut, I think you mean his hand. I think, a change is as good as a rest and it is less...formal than the other, for what its worth I don't see any real issues with the pic as is now, its basically cropped and tweaked to a portrait and it is as I remember from last night a year newer. Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the interview, I watched it last night and thought it was live but it seems it was first aired in June. I posted it for interested users to perhaps watch and consider if there is anything of additional value to add, he did seem very candid in his replies about policy and such like though. The interview is available on utube but not that I saw in a reliable link. Here it is http://wn.com/hugo_chavez_hardtalk_part_2wmv - Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Can this be archived? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Lets sort this POV situation out
Hello there everyone. There seems to have been quite a bit of argument as to the POV nature of this article over the last few weeks. One the one hand, Johnywalk85 (03 December 2010) believed that this article was inherently biased AGAINST Chavez, whilst several other editors, such as Lecen, appear to believe that this article is inherently biased IN FAVOUR of Chavez. What a sticky situation. As many of you will likely have noticed, I have recently been updating and *I hope* improving it, with plenty of information brought in from Bart Jones’s biography of Chavez (2007) and Gregory Wilpert’s analysis of the Chavez regime and those who oppose it (2007). I will continue doing so over the next few weeks, as I further study these texts, as well as others, such as Brewer-Carrias’ anti-Chavez polemic (2010). Therefore, with these constant additions and clean up that I am undertaking, please remember that this is a page that will likely be under a state of flux.

So is this page POV ? I myself, do not believe so, but I welcome reasoned argument from those who believe that it is on either side (i.e. those thinking it anti- or pro- Chavez). If there is substance to these arguments, then alterations will have to be made. What I do fear however (and this is based upon what I have already seen on this talk page) is that vehemently anti-Chavez figures will not rest till their criticisms of Chavez play a heavy and dominating part on the article, despite the fact that many other world political figures such as George Bush and Barack Obama (both of whom, on a world rather than US-centric stage, are far, far more controversial than Chavez I might add), do not see the same level of criticism on their pages. The same could be true of Chavez supporters, who could insist on flooding this page with pro-Chavez information and counter-criticisms. So please, reasoned argument only, and use specific examples where you feel there is bias within the text…. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC))


 * Midnight, we tried this numerous times in the past and got nowhere fast. You can certainly go through the archive and find some of the previous discussions, but I will post some of my many, many criticisms of this page.


 * First off, you do realize that many of the books you are relying upon are written by not-so-subtle supporters of Chavez, do you not? Yes, Jones is a reporter, but he's hardly objective. Of course, being pro-Chavez doesn't mean the information provided is inaccurate.  But, just because a work that is "scholarly", doesn't mean it's free of bias.  (And, then there's the reliance by other editors on venezuelanalysis.com, which may as well be written by Chavez.)


 * Some general examples of the bias in this article (and, I find it preposterous that anyone can seriously argue this article is biased AGAINST Chavez): The Crime section. I started the section because there were a plethora of articles pointing out how murders and kidnappings had skyrocketed since Chavez took office.  This was quickly changed to make crime-fighting seem like one of Chavez's big victories.


 * Another example is the Human Rights Watch report. This is a 200 page report entitled "A decade under Chavez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela."  You don't have to read past the title to recognize that this report is slamming Chavez for his human rights record.  Yet, it appears from the Wiki article that the report is a mixed bag of failures and great successes under Chavez.  Yes, it does technically include what is mentioned in the Wiki section, but it's a gross mischaracterization of the article (and, yes, I've read the entire 200-page article.)


 * The part about the closing of the TV station is a complete farce.


 * I previously added a section which included a list of the various conspiracy theories that Chavez has propagated (my favorite being the accusation that the U.S. used the HARRP program to create an earthquake machine, which was tested on Haiti during last year's quake.) This was summarily removed by the pro-Chavez crowd as being "trivia" (as opposed to more substantive issues such as how many people follow him on Twitter...)


 * For the record, these are just a few examples. Ultimately, I gave up trying to fix this article and have said repeatedly that the only thing I am going to do for the time being is ensure that the POV/neutrality tag remains.  This article is far from neutral, and people visiting this page at the very least have to be informed that they are not getting a fair representation.


 * Moreover, not to sound overly cynical, but I don't see how this article will possibly be improved until more editors get involved. I would be happy to be proven wrong on this, but I am highly skeptical of this happening.  There are a very small number of editors working on this page, and most of them have shown (IMO) a substantial bias in favor of Chavez.  I don't mean this as a personal attack -- people are free to believe whatever they wish.  But, unless dramatic changes are made, this article simply fails to meet Wiki guidelines through-and-through.JoelWhy (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing these issues to attention. I am well aware that the two main books I am using are generally pro-Chavez, but I still believe them to be perhaps the best books on Chavez available, as long as one is able to remove the writers' opinion from the facts. As a general supporter of Chavez (I make no secret of this), my personal opinion is inclined to be pro-Chavez, but at the same time I try and commit to being nuetral for the sake of the article. I'd be more than happy in working with you to achieve nuetrality JoelWhy, and I think that from what you say, it is clear that most of the POV problems come from the latter part of the article, that which deals with Chavez's policies, no? Then it is here that we must focus out attentions. Do you see any POV problems with the biography section? (that which I have been primarily focused on recently). (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Neutrality "requires that each article... fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". In order to do that we require academic sources that explain how Chavez is perceived, but no one has presented any.  Also, it says in reliable sources, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources".  TFD (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the books that I have been using to flesh out this article have largely fitted in with this description, no? Before, it relied almost purely on various internet articles.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC))
 * TFD, the problem is these "scholarly works" are written by people with clear biases. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be used, but we are not going to be able to move forward if we pretend these are somehow objective pieces of work.
 * I do not have time right now to go through all your recent change, Midnight. Some of them are fine, but some of them read like a story being told about Chavez the Hero of the poor.  I am fairly certain it reads this way because it is exactly how those books describe his upbringing.JoelWhy (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Facts (e.g., when Chavez was born) are the same in all reliable sources. The benefit of high quality rs is not the opinions that they present but their explanation of how the subject is perceived.  They will say for example, "most analysts believe that Chavez is moving the country towards dictatorship/has lost control of the country/has improved living standards, etc.  That all writers will have their own personal opinions on should not matter.  Good academic sources will explain how the subject is perceived and do so in a neutral tone.  TFD (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also like to add that one of the most significant differences between news periodicals like the Economist and academic sources is that academic sources provide you with citations where you can actually check their facts for yourself. With the Economist, you have to just take their word for everything (which is probably not a good idea, considering their frequent publication of gross misinformation). Everyone is biased, sure, but at least with academic sources, you have an improved (albeit not without its own issues) of checking the factual accuracy of what they are saying. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems that people here are looking for academic sources, and as I wrote somewhere else I have access to these online. I may be able to post links to standalone PDF files, which you guys might be able to access and work from, so we can spread the load. I will be able to find out in a few days if this actually works. If it doesn't, if you need some special access or need to be on a special network, then I guess I will have to do the work myself, with you guys' help. ValenShephard (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:DUE and WP:V; academic sources are not widely available for a contemporary political bio, and mainstream news sources are reliable for this purpose; looking for more journal articles that express the opinions of the few writers who have taken the topic on will not create a balanced article that gives due weight to all mainstream, reliable views as required by Wiki policy, and unless that is done, the article will not advance out of its POV state. Please do find the journal sources if they exist, but that doesn't mean that mainstream reliable sources and viewpoints can be excluded, and particularly not to the extent that we have now, where one author's account (Jones) dominates the article, with some very dubious statements and opinions that all need to be tagged to alert our readers. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 09:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * News sources are good for news, but not so good for analysis. If we cannot find good analysis, then it is better to just have bare facts.  TFD (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A coup against the constitution
"IN AN election for the National Assembly last September, Venezuelan voters sent a clear message to Hugo Chávez, their autocratic elected president. Slightly more of them voted for opposition candidates than for the ruling party and its allies. Thanks to the government’s manipulation of the electoral rules, the opposition’s votes only translated into 67 seats, whereas the chavistas ended up with 98. But even that was not secure enough for Mr Chávez."

"He has used the final three months of the outgoing assembly, in which he has an overwhelming majority, to render irrelevant the incoming legislature, due to be sworn in on January 5th. The centrepiece of this effort is an enabling law which grants the government the power to rule by decree for the next 18 months."

"The assembly’s other functions have been curtailed too. Under a swiftly approved reform of its internal rules, the legislature will now meet as little as four days a month. All parliamentary commissions will be controlled by the government, and speeches to the assembly on any given topic will be limited to a total of 15 minutes per member. Debates will only be transmitted by government television channels, allowing the authorities to gag dissident voices."

Source: The Econonomist


 * I wonder if someone will add this to the article. When I opened a discussion about Chavez' new powers, I had to hear some wikipedians tell me that he did that to help people affected by rain or something like that. The article has to be clear about how he has been destroying Venezuela's democracy. --Lecen (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I think you should be referring to the "alleged destruction of Venezuela's democracy". Chavez has made alterations to representational democracy agreed, but only for the reason that it was dominated and controlled by members of the wealthy oligarchy (a dictatorship of the bourgeoise if you will). Instead, he has introduced moves toward participatory democracy that have given ordinary working class Venezuelans, (who make up the majority, and have successively voted him into power) far more "democratic" control than ever before. The Economist is a right wing, capitalist source, controlled by members of the very oligarchy that Chavez so bitterly opposes, and so they are very much a POV and biased source.


 * This does not, however, mean that we shouldn't include the information in this article. Of course we should, as it represents a valid and widely held opinion about Chavez and his government. What I object to is the presentation of these biased sources as being in some way truthful, which is certainly debatable.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC))


 * Oh, God. You call the Venezuelan parliament, that has not a single member of the opposition for years now, but has only members of Chávez' political party as "controlled by members of the wealthy oligarchy"? Or a "dictatorship of the bourgeoise"?


 * "far more 'democratic' control than ever before"? What? And they couldn't vote before Chavez came to power?


 * "is a right wing, capitalist source, controlled by members of the very oligarchy that Chavez so bitterly opposes" WHAT? The Economist is now a Venezuelan journal published by... Venezuelans? What the f&*#$%? Nothing of what you say make any sense at all!


 * Who are you trying to fool around? Do you think you're talking with an imbecile who knows nothing about Venezuela, peharps? --Lecen (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Woah there! Don't make this a personal attack. You clearly have a bias against Chavez (which is if course your right), but you have to recognise alternate points of view, rather than just ridiculing them. If you are so keen on purporting such a vehemently anti-Chavez viewpoint on an online encyclopaedia, may I suggest Conservapedia might be more to your liking ? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC))
 * This is a very polemical source, but we should also refrain from using polemics here. These same events are mentioned in more reliable sources (BBC, Guardian, Venezuela Analysis) and they use much more balanced wording to convey similar information, and this is crucial for interpreting the events. We all know that how an event is described is central to how it is understood, so I would recommend using another source. And actually, most reliable sources state clearly that it was not some "manipulation" that led to the opposition not getting a majority but a slight change in the constituency areas (just as has recently occured in nations like the United Kingdom) so that is no big deal (as better sources reveal) and most sources now concede that the opposition did not in fact get a physical majority of the vote, this was simply bluster. ValenShephard (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And to be fair I would content that the user here engaged in heated debate with Midnightblueowl is making a pretty good case for making a personal attack, so I would warn against that. Some more zealous editors might not take kindly to it. Just a thought. ValenShephard (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Lecen before to improve his tone here, hasn't helped. Folks who come here to rant about Chavez on the talk page only slow down progress; until folks here start focusing on policy, sourcing, and really desire to write a neutral article, nothing is going to change, and the article will remain POV and mired in dispute. I tried to police the talk page tone before, didn't work; it would be nice if some of the regular editors who follow this page would at least try to police some of the content additions-- how did this article get so much worse with so many people watching, and how do y'all expect folks not to rant when they see that happening? But that doesn't excuse the tone here, and It Is Not Helpful. (Lecen, I'm looking at you.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 08:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And for ValenShephard, The Economist is a reliable source, so your hyperbole doesn't help the tone here much, either. Stating that Venezuelanalysis is more reliable than The Economist stretches credibility, and it's no wonder folks get frustrated with that. Venezuelanalysis is clearly more biased than any other reliable source being used here, and its use in BLPs is limited by that: this is a BLP. Midnight says similar things above, which simply are not founded in policy: y'all need to stop arguing sourcing policy that you might not know, and start working on neutrality. Both The Economist and Venezuelanalysis have been discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard, The Economist is a reliable source, you can't exclude it because you don't like it's POV, and Venezuelanalysis has a known bias, which limits its usefulness in statements about living persons, but it does have some use. Focus on policy and sources, not hyperbole and misunderstanding of Wiki's policies. Midnight, please do some reading besides Jones; a multitude of reliable sources document and discuss the destruction of democracy under Chavez, and that will be a topic of discussion on this talk page. If you can't accept what very many very reliable sources say, rational discussion here will be very difficult. And you are expressing a POV which is showing in your writing. Please review WP:NPOV and try to "write for the enemy"; when you add new content, balance it with what a multitude of sources say, don't just write from one point of view. You are the one who got this particular section off on the wrong foot with your statements about The Economist, which are not founded in policy and which reveal a point of view that should not be creeping into your writing (it is, documented below). Lecen quoted a reliable source above; you responded with your opinion. Please focus on sources, not the person; the talk page is for discussing the article and sources and how to improve the article, not individual's views. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 08:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Venezuela Analysis is frequently called the most reliable source on Venezuelan affairs by notable experts and analysts. Check out its homepage to see what some experts say about it, you will see that most are notable. ValenShephard (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We've already had this conversation, extensively, at the reliable sources noticeboard, and of course their homepage is going to report favorable stances to their reporting. Let's not spin our wheels here-- let's treat scrutiny of all sources and all editors' behavior on talk with the same standard.  We should use sources correctly, according to their known biases, and treat all editors who misbehave on talk with the same standard. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The issue has always been what weight to give varying opinions. Do the opinions expressed in the Economist have any weight?  Bear in mind that they do not even represent mainstream views when discussing events in the the UK.  TFD (talk) 08:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Right now there is no varying opinion in this article, much less mainstream views, and what The Economist says is reiterated by scores of other sources (take your pick, you can find the same general ideas in legions of them). Our policy on due weight is clear; continuing to have this discussion is what causes the turmoil on this talk page and maintains the article in a POV state.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 08:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Holy Cow
I wish I hadn't peeked. I thought it impossible for this article to get much worse, but it has. The lead is outrageously way too long, and the POV has dramatically increased (and there is a curious unencyclopedic informal tone to the writing, as well). Major portions of Chavez' presidency-- long discussed on this page-- have vanished, and rather blatant one-sided versions have replaced them, including some very curious cherry-picking of quotes, which don't even try to accord to due weight. Well, it looks like business as usual here, bickering on talk, accusations, but no apparent desire to NPOV the article yet. I will continue to check in to see if the tone has changed or if any new editors have shown up and are willing to work towards neutrality and due weight. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And, the article as well as the lead has become burdened by length (11,000 words of prose); it appears that the POV increase is due to the over-reliance on two sources, to the exclusion of other sources. Those issues and sources are well documented in archives here, no need for me to repeat them as they won't be read, but some of the POV introduced here is beyond over the top. I suggest whomever has added so much of Jones and Wilpert might want to read some other sources to neutralize the article; overrelying on one source for a bio of this nature is bound to introduce that author's POV.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am the one who has been making the additions with Jones and Wilpert. Agreed, they are somewhat pro-Chavez sources, but at the same time they contain a lot of useful factual information in them. I welcome other users to introduce information from anti-Chavez sources, but I don't happen to have any of them. Thos that do, please introduce them, to help make this a more nuetral article.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC))
 * I don't think writing a balanced article is about creating a balance between pro and anti sources on the subject. We should just expand to other sources. ValenShephard (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is already much too long (and yet incomplete), doesn't use summary style appropriately, and we don't attain neutral articles by using battling sources, one to overcome the POV of the other. We attain neutrality by using sources correctly to begin with; that hasn't been done here, so adding to it will be unproductive. And if you don't have any sources that present more balanced views, that would help explain why your writing has introduced so much POV.  To write an article correctly involves not only "writing for the enemy", but "reading for the enemy" first, so you know what to write and where and how your sources are biased (see our WP:NPOV page on "writing for the enemy"-- when you add POV text, we don't later fix it by adding more POV text to balance it).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * When you write 5,000 words in an article, drawn from partisan sources, it's not likely fixable, and having a battle of competing POVs and sources is not how we write articles (please read WP:NPOV and WP:V). Suggestion:  when you know your sources are partisan (and you acknowledged that on this talk page), consider whether your additions are neutral and balanced, and go read other sources to determine if you're giving undue weight to one view.  If you write from sources that present all views (like The New York Times, the BBC, and others), then include all sides of the story when adding text, and avoid cherrypicking parts of the article that support only one POV. If you aren't familiar with all mainstream POVs, and willing to read all sides, consider not editing the article at all, and only entering commentary on talk. Many months of unnecessary work and has gone into creating a poorly written and even more POV article here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Serious prose deterioration

 * Where exactly do you see tone issues so we can begin to work on that? ValenShephard (talk) 06:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the most important issue at hand; there are much bigger problems, and listing them would be a major undertaking. I'm thinking a revert would be more useful, but why revert one POV article to another POV article?   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * True enough; the reason I mentioned tone is because it's a task lacking in ideology and could be tackled pretty simply enough. ValenShephard (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see a lot to be gained by fixing text that should be mostly removed anyway, at least not until the article is neutralized (and a lot of the expansion belongs in daughter articles, if anywhere, but should be written neutrally there, and balanced by mainstream reliable sources that are now obliterated in the article). I only raise the issue so it won't continue, but copyediting is the least of the problems here, for now. Smoothing the prose would amount to sticking a finger in the dike. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A few quick samples of prose issues, before I unwatch, but considering that the Foreign policy and multiple sections of this article still need expansion, I don't know why so much content is being added here anyway, rather than to daughter articles:
 * He subsequently also began (subsequently also?)
 * It was because of his great interest in Bolívar that ... (ugh)
 * Meanwhile, Chávez graduated ... (Meanwhile?)
 * Chávez went on to form a new ... (went on to ? so much redundant and sloppy wording in an article that needs trimming!) How about "He formed ... "
 * was assigned to take up a position ... (to take up? not needed, extra wordiness)
 * of the Democratic Action party was democratically elected into office after a campaign in which he promised to go against ... ugh ... of AD (an acronym which should already be defined at this point) was elected (why is democratically elected there, how else is one elected? and why "into office", what else is one elected to) and why "after" a campaign, that's obvious ... and "to go against", colloquial... entire sentence needs to be written in English.
 * I hope that's enough for samples, but it goes on and on; I don't see the usefulness in typing it all out. Jones wrote a book (has to have marketing appeal); we're writing an encyclopedia, hopefully in neutral and encyclopedic tone, we aren't selling a book.  And I hope we're not dealing with WP:PLAGIARISM or WP:PARAPHRASE here, because who writes like that?  Does someone else have the sources to check for WP:COPYVIO?  But skipping down, this is a jolly bit of unrefuted POV: "gave himself up to the government after they threatened to bomb the museum, which he recognised would have caused large numbers of casualties amongst both his own men and those communities adjacent to the building."  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And another thing WP:ENGVAR; the article is written in US English, not British-- it's "recognized", not "recognised". Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a bit wordy, but it can be fixed, thanks for the heads up. ValenShephard (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Prose issues everywhere, in an entirely too long article, discussing items that aren't relevant in a broad overview. It looks now like someone read one book and decided our article had to look like that one book.  It's everywhere I look, and I haven't even started tagging the POV unbalanced statements.  Look at this sentence:
 * It was because of his great interest in Bolívar that in 1974 he was selected to be a Venezuelan representative to travel to Peru in order to take part in the commemorations for the one-hundred-and-fiftieth anniversary of the Battle of Ayacucho, the conflict in which Bolívar's lieutenant, Antonio José de Sucre, defeated royalist forces during the Peruvian War of Independence.
 * Yes, that really is one sentence, with about twice as many words as needed to convey the thought, and wholly unuseful to this article (it belongs in one of the daughter articles, there is more to cover here and we don't need so much detail, we have Wikilinks). How about:
 * Because of his interest in Bolívar, he was selected in 1974 to represent Venezuela at Peru's 150th commemoration of the Battle of Ayacucho.
 * Please revert this article to an earlier version; the writing is poor, the good parts that were here are gone, it overrelies on one source, and the POV is much worse than before. I will begin tagging POV statements next time I have a moment. I just don't understand what everyone was thinking here to let this kind of writing creep in.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 09:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Back on POV
The POV here has taken on an alarmingly unapologetic and blatant tone, and is everywhere I look; listing it all would be a major undertaking. Listing the factual issues due to overreliance on one source would be huge, so for starters, let's just look at how we treat and discuss the various sources (and the article seriously overrelies on one source, Jones, we don't use Wiki to tell one person's version of a controversial story, we give due weight to all mainstream reliable sources):

For one source, we quote something not entirely useful to this already-too-long article, adding to its length, in glowing terms: We don't qualify this "biographer" in any way (positive or negative), and why do we need that quote in an overly article, btw? Yet for another source, we qualify the writer in POV terms (where on Wiki do we disqualify our sources like that, including the word to avoid claim? Either a source is reliable or it's not): It looks like any version of the history other than Jones-Wilpert gets a qualifier, and Word to avoid, claim. This is but one of many samples of POV at its finest; similar is found throughout the article at an alarming level, and gives us an idea of the writer's bias (in a neutral article, you shouldn't be able to tell-- clearly, POV is in play here). But an even bigger problem is content that has been blatantly omitted, to tell one side of the story (by weight of sources, the Jones, Wilpert version), to the exclusion of a multitude of other reliable sources that have been omitted. We've discussed all of this many times, and it's documented in archives; that new editors come along doesn't mean that it all hs to be documented again, when nothing has changed-- mainstream reliable sources are not represented, and we now have a worse version of one side of the issues being included. And that's not accounting for the POV introduced by how outdated the article is; a good portion of what is here now is nothing but an expansion of a few points of view from a selective few writers, undue weight to a few sources, adding to the length of the article, while failing to update it and accord due weight to all sources. The article makes no pretense of telling an accurate, up-to-date, neutral, balanced story-- the one you can read on a multitude of other sources. It's a full-on fluff piece now (it was bad before, but not this bad). One only needs to look at the top 10 contributors to the article, by time, to see that I gave up in 2006 (other than MOS cleanup, etc), and see the nine editors who have contributed most since. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 07:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As Chávez's biographer, Brian Jones, noted, "Chávez's appearence was a bombshell. The gallant young officer in the dashing red beret instantaneously captivated millions of people who had never heard of him and were wondering who'd led the stunning rebellion.
 * Venezuelan lawyer and academic Allan R. Brewer-Carías, a professed opponent of Chávez, has made the claim that under his regime the country has "suffered a tragic setback regarding democratic standards, suffering a continuous, persistent and deliberate process of demolishing institutions and destroying democracy, which has never before been experienced in the constitutional history of the country."[160]
 * As I mentioned earlier, we need academic sources to explain how Chavez is generally perceived and no one has been able to find any. TFD (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned before, WP:NPOV tells us to give due weight to all mainstream reliable sources; we can't cherry pick journal articles, which aren't the preferred source for a contemporary bio anyway, to present only one POV. We don't expect academic sources-- except those likely to have a bias-- to cover current events.  And we don't exclude other mainstream reliable sources to tell the story as one journal author sees it; we balance sources, according to due weight.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * V
 * WP:UNDUE
 * RS (clearly, this is a contemporary topic, a BLP, and not an academic topic-- mainstream news sources are reliable, and books and journal articles are likely to either have a bias or be outdated ... in this article, we are promoting a few authors' bias as fact, unbalanced by a multitude of other sources). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 08:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Back on prose
And back on prose, why is this here, what is it adding to the article?
 * On one of his scheduled holidays, he decided to travel out on foot in order to learn more about his family history by tracing the route taken by his great-grandfather Pedro Pérez Delgado, ...
 * "decided to" (redundant)
 * travel "out"?
 * "in order to" is always redundant
 * Why do we care it's on holiday? This is an encyclopedia, not a novel.

and this text belongs in a daughter article if anywhere. Last August, at least some of the top sections of this article were in good shape (I don't recall having any complaints about the older sections written by Saravask at the top of the article); now even that is gone. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 08:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If this text belongs anywhere, it's Early life of Hugo Chavez or Military career of Hugo Chavez, although I doubt it's even relevant there, but for the purpose of examining the prose:
 * On one of his scheduled holidays, he decided to travel out on foot in order to learn more about his family history by tracing the route taken by his great-grandfather Pedro Pérez Delgado, better known as Maisanta, who himself was a revolutionary, and who had lived much of his life in Apure State. In doing so, he met an elderly woman who claimed that she had remembered Maisanta from when she was a young girl, and who told Chávez a story of how Maisanta had become a hero to her local community by rescuing an abducted girl.
 * consider
 * While on holiday, he retraced on foot the route taken by his great-grandfather Pedro Pérez Delgado (known as Maisanta, a revolutionary), to understand his family history; on that trip, he met a woman who told Chávez how Maisanta had become a local hero by rescuing an abducted girl.
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Summary
Summarizing, I think the article has been even more damaged, and attempting to write a neutral article from here-- with prose issues, overreliance on one source, overly long lead, and destruction of Saravask's sections which were well written-- is not viable. I suggest a revert to somewhere around this version, and then start working in sandbox, shorten the lead, and actually discuss sources and improvements so the article at least won't be made worse. Working from here will be harder than starting over, and you lose the good portions written by Saravask. Copyediting and cleaning up a poorly-sourced article is a waste of everyone's time, and this article now relies too heavily on a few sources. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 08:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * How do you determine what weight to give the differing viewpoints? Normally you would use a journal article that would explain it.  TFD (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And this is when I unwatch, because we've discussed this many times, and policy is clear. When virtually every mainstream reliable source in the world says x, we can't ignore x in our articles because we find one biased book or journal article that does.  You are aware of the ridiculously long list of sources I put together the last time we had this discussion: on a contemporary bio, we don't ignore The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, The Economist, El Universal, the BBC, The Boston Globe ... shall I go on?  Academic journals may have some place in an article of this nature, but biased books and journal articles must be balanced with the multitude of mainstream sources which cover current events.  The links I gave above answer your question very clearly; this article currently excludes mainstream thinking in favor of Jones, Wilpert and Venezuelanalysis and is unbalanced by mainstream sources.  I don't know what you mean by "normally"; on a current bio, we don't expect academic publications to be up to date or unbiased.  "Normally" when I add medical content to Wikipedia, I rely on journals and not the lay press-- that is not the case for an article of this type, particularly when a multitude of sources present a view that is nowhere present in this article.  I suggest you look at the lead of this old version, which at least attempted some balanced compared to what we have now.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 08:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * These are the types of opinions that claimed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, he was behind the 9/11 attacks, global warming is a hoax, etc. Are they informed opinions or merely polemics?  We should really be using intelligent opinions, both pro and con.  TFD (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please confine your opinions and polemics to user talk pages; they have no place here. See WP:NOTAFORUM, and try to base your talk page commentary on sources. Thank you, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 09:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Jones, Wilpert, and several other sources on which this article now relies are too old to be useful here; they were published in 2007, which means they were written likely in 2006. Besides that they reflect the author's personal biases, they are outdated, and need to be balanced with more current publications. (And Gott is 2005, for gosh sakes!) Sandy Georgia (Talk) 09:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The point is that the quality of analysis in the sources you recommend is poor, and beneath the standards that would normally be used in an encyclopedia. Even if some of the writers are experts, we should be able to use their academic writing rather than their polemical writing.  And looking at Google scholar, there are numerous current articles that could be used.  Here are over 1,000 articles from 2010, most of which are high quality sources.  TFD (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We've already had the discussion about the "thousands of google scholar hits"; see archives, stay on topic, which is policy, not opinion. No matter how many sources there are or are not, mainstream viewpoints are not reflected in this article. And if you think the quality of sources I recommend is poor, then by all means ask at the reliable sources noticeboard, but please don't continue to take up talk page space with your arguments in favor of certain sources that you prefer. I have a more curious question: the prose here has significantly deteriorated, POV has been worsened, and the text is based too much on one source.  If there are, as you claim, thousands of sources, why did you not offer them as the article was deteriorating?  It would be helpful if regulars here would apply the same standard to all editors, and I suggest that you might have offered those sources or objected to the prose deterioration as it was happening, not just when I happen to check in.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 10:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have not argued about the sources I prefer but about the types of sources. Highly polemical tirades in the WSJ do not really provide any insight into the subject, other than tell us that they do not like him.  But anyone could have guessed that anyway.  Incidentally most of the changes that bother you were made recently and I have discussed them above.  TFD (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please don't deflect the discussion; no one is suggesting "highly polemical tirades in the WSJ". I am saying that you can't leave out major chunks of this article because old or biased books don't mention the issues, when every reliable mainstream source does.  I haven't yet taken the time to decipher who wrote what and when (and considering the very poor shape the article is in, I'm not sure that would be a good use of time, a revert would be better), but what I do see is a solid string of edits going back to at least December 8, with no objection, rewriting, copyediting, or anything from any other editor to correct the obvious issues being introduced into the article (I don't know when the size got so out of control, but presumably it was there).  At some point someone expanded the lead, and it's out of control.  And I see a chunk of edits  from Schwindt, which I presume (haven't looked) were formatting cleanup, so it's likely that his time was wasted, since the article is now in shape that IMO only a revert can yield a decent starting place.  Much of Saravask's writing in the top part of the article had endured, and it had little problems; now we have unsalvagable writing and POV even in those sections. So, what I don't understand is why edits from certain editors are reverted so quickly here, scrutinized interminably, rejected for any tiny reason, and yet, it looks to me like a whole lot of editors sat by and watched this article seriously deteriorate for over a month, perhaps because the POV was agreeable to everyone except the lone voice of JoelWhy and occasionally Lecen (please see the ArbCom decision about blocks of editors overruling policy).  And that is the root of the problems here-- unequal treatment, irrespective of policy or guideline, some edits welcome even if they're very poor, others rejected even if they're very good.  And that is why you end up with rants on the talk page and a POV article.  You jump on Lecen above for pointing out a good source, while you let someone else misbehave on talk and you let the article deteriorate-- start some good for the goose is good for the gander, accord policy and all editors the respect they deserve, and scrutinize edits and editor behavior the same, regardless of whether you happen to agree with the editor's stance on the issues (which shouldn't be entering into talk page discussions anyway, but some of the edits make it very clear how dramatic is the POV of some people writing here, and that should be set aside, text balanced, "write for the enemy").  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PS, post above uses the global "you", not directed at TFD "you", although he does seem to have sat by and watched this happen along with others-- it's a pattern here, some edits are accepted no matter how poor, others rejected no matter how good, depending on the POV of the edits, and it goes one way only. Same for tolerance of misbehavior on talk.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Length
The article is so long now (at 11,000 words, without expansion of sections that are critical) that it is hard to load and edit. I'm switching the tag I just installed on the article, since it doesn't help our readers to know that the article needs copyediting, length reduced, and lead reduced; our readers need to know that the article is out of date and POV. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 09:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Bart Jones reviews
Please revert this article and rewrite it neutrally without an overreliance on one partisan source: I could go on; we should not be overrelying here on such a shoddy, partisan source. His account is partisan at best, inaccurate at worst, and needs balancing with other sources; overrelying on this one book has made this article even more POV, and yet he gets quoted with no "disclaimers" or words to avoid, as are attached to other authors. Attempting to balance this article with "Jones says x" but "y says z" will only make the article worse; reverting it and rewriting it neutrally from a variety of sources will be more effective. At a minimum, I suggest reverting to this version (December 3, 5,000 words, apparently the article size doubled when Jones was added, and much of that content belongs in daughter articles even if it were sourced to more neutral sources) before Jones was introduced, and before Saravask's well written work was obliterated, then use Jones only for any parts that may be warranted based on reviews of his work (if there are any that belong in this article)-- a further revert may be helpful, I haven't looked that far back yet. It is troubling that so many editors watched the prose and POV worsen here and did nothing for over a month, while a partisan source was introduced. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/161hugo-the-hugo-chavez-story-by-bart-jones-841036.html
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/bart-jones A reporter for Newsday? Great ...
 * http://www.mclemee.com/id203.html Clear bias
 * http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2586 more clear bias
 * http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0604/p09s01-coop.html more, indicating his clear editorial stance
 * http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=22722 More, his editorial stance is clear, and he is a Chavez advocate
 * http://www.mitfamericas.org/Hugo.htm But organizes of the Venezuela Solidarity Network endorse his work, not surprising
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/30/AR2007083001583_2.html Pretty clear.
 * http://weeksnotice.blogspot.com/2007/11/bart-jones-hugo-hugo-chvez-story-from.html Another, consensus seems clear, nice thriller, but not the quality of book we should be using to write this entire article.


 * I have no objections to that. Notice that Hugo was written by a journalist and published by Random House.  I have not conducted my own investigation to see how reliable it is, but if we stick to academic sources we will not have the same neutrality issues.  I do not see how we could determine that this book is any more or less accurate than the opinions of other journalists or other writings in the popular media.  TFD (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The current problem is that we apply one standard to Jones, and a different standard to other sources that are argued here as being "partisan"-- we need to apply the same standard to all, and use sources appropriately, without undue expansion of the text that overrelies on one source. That would include a discussion of sources, without a double standard.  It appears, for example, that the Brewer-Carias book is so new that there are few reviews (at least, I can't find them). At least it was published by a serious and respected academic press, his bias notwithstanding, so I'd expect reviews to be more favorable, but can't find any.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A cursory examination of all of the approximately 5,000 words of text added since Dec 3 reveals that virtually all of it was sourced to Jones (some to Wilpert and Venezuelanalysis, all sources that share the same bias, with no attempt to balance the text with a broader use of sources); this is an inappropriate use of a partisan source that introduced POV, expanded the text unnecessarily while ignoring summary style, and obliterated some of Saravask's well written work that did rely on a more appropriate use of summary style. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We should apply the same standard and if we keep it high, we could avoid neutrality disputes. Because Brewer-Carias' writing is recent, it may be some time before we know what acceptance his opinions receive.  TFD (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that whilst we should certainly include information from the liked of Brewer-Carias, we should not do so by deleting everything by Jones and Wilpert that I have spent many hours into adding in order to improve what was a poorly empty and unreferenced page. So, for this reason, please do not just revert, I am more than happy to work with you on improving the article, but this cannot be achieved by simply reverting the page to what was undoubtedly a worse edit.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Yes, I agree. The work you did was good. I was away from the article for like 3 months and came back to see a great deal of well written detail added. I don't think reverts and deletes would help. It is a bit wordy in places, but we can fix this. ValenShephard (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is not in a state that can be improved, it is too long while not even covering the basics, and it is phenomenally POV. That you spent many hours trying to improve it, well, I suggest the editors who watched this "improvement" and did nothing to ask you to write neutrally, broaden your sources, or address the serious prose deficiencies should answer why that was allowed to happen. I wasn't here, and JoelWhy and Lecen tried; it is those who didn't speak up that should answer why you were allowed to misspend your time here. And no, we don't just randomly include other sources like Brewer-Carias to balance your POV; we start by evaluating sources before we use them, and then using sources correctly. Jones is not an adequate source for the amount of text that now relies on him, most of which belongs in daughter articles, even if better sourced and better written.  (But please don't go do the same thing to the sub-article at Military career of Hugo Chavez, which is a featured article and will end up at WP:FAR if it sees the kind of deterioration this article has seen.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly I would disagree with your claim that the article has deteriorated with my additions. If you can call the messy, mostly unreferenced, unformatted state of affairs that I set out to improve better then, well, I just can't agree. I have brought a level of order and detail to the work - yes, using mostly pro-Chavez sources BUT I believe myself to be justified in using these. There simply are no unbiased sources, and to use the most prominent biography of Chavez (i.e. Jones) is, I feel, justified. Agreed, the work might be too long. I'm willing to work on that. Agreed, there might be some POV in my use of language, and once again I am willing to work on that. By mass deleting my hard work (which is, effectively, what a revert is) however, simply to replace it with what went before would be downright annoying to those users who have worked hard on it.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC))


 * Please address your annoyance at those who allowed it to happen, as well as the serious issues I have documented above; the article is not fixable as it stands, and the previous version affords a better starting place (and was not unsourced as you claim). If you want to salvage some of your text, you can put it in a sandbox and massage it there, and later propose it for addition to sub-articles. Trying to salvage POV text isn't worth the effort; using sources correctly to begin with would have avoided this problem. If you would like, I will put your text in a sandbox for you, and we can see what you're able to do with it, but it shouldn't be in this article until it is balanced, better sourced, and copy-edited. And finally, it is simply incorrect to say there are no unbiased sources; perhaps you just haven't read them. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, please put it in the sandbox. Rather than debating this for days and days on end, with many people chipping in, let's just get started on improving this article.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Will do now. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being so cordial in this conversation. It can be so easy for some users to become right b**tards on discussion pages, doing nothing but ranting and hurling personal attacks. Shall we archive this user page so that we can start afresh with working together on this new article? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC))


 * Here you go: User:Midnightblueowl/ChavezSandbox.  I've left off the interwikis, cats, etc at the bottom of the article, as that will cause your userpage to be incorrectly added to cats, etc.  Please be aware that if text is moved from sandbox back to an article after being changed, it has to done correctly per attribution purposes of Wiki licensing (I don't know the link to that page offhand, but please ask for assistance if you intend to move text back and don't know how).  And thank you, too-- the tone on this talk page has long been unconducive to collaborative work, and in case anyone finds my tone harsh, it's because I'm used to working at WP:FAC, where editors submit their work, knowing it will be subjected to harsh criticism and intense scrutiny. No, I don't think we should archive this page, because it documents the many outstanding issues.  I still suggest we revert for now, subject to the idea that you can bring text back from sandbox as it is massaged and discussed, and consensus is gained about sourcing, undue weight, whether to put text in sub- or main articles, etc. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I'd personally like to alter the page as it is, I recognize that I'm biased because of the work and effort I've already put in, so I'll agree that it's probably best if you revert the page, and then we start working through the article, area by area. Thanks. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC))
 * That's a most collegial approach! But I'll wait for further feedback.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't support reverting the page. Supporting the revert would mean supporting the idea that the article has gotten worse or is a mess, and I simply don't agree. There are a few simple examples of POV wording like the word "oligarchy" (it is legitmately used in sources not the prejudice of the editors) and this can easily be fixed. I simply do not see fundamental issues and a piece of trash, I won't accept that. ValenShephard (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, don't throw out the baby with the bath water, I also think that reverting is a bad idea, I think it's better to fix present version and move some material to daughter articles. JRSP (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is quite saddening to see Midnightblueowl appear to become dissolusioned with his own edits, that is unfortunate. His edits need a little copy editing; a few uses of POV language (because it is present in the sources) have crept in but this is minor and was unfortunately missed by others. His additions are both useful, well sourced and generally very well written (yes there are a few wordy bits) no need to trash his good work, and the article is definitely not a POV mess. It could do with expansion in certain areas however, but this has been overshadowed by exactly these disputes. ValenShephard (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * @JRSP, there is no baby here, only bathwater. The portions of the article most edited were in good shape before, now they're poorly written, POV and too long.  @Valen, it seems to me that Midnight is handling it just fine.  Please don't persist with the claim that the new text is either well written or well-sourced in the face of the evidence above.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call anyone's opinion evidence. My opinion is that the article has overall improved, with a few small issues introduced (which I mentioned) which can be fixed. ValenShephard (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia, although I am willing to accept a revert and work from there, I would certainly prefer it if the page stays as it is (rather than suffering a revert to what I believe was most clearly an inferior page, lacking references for certain areas, being visually a mess and what not), and that we work on improving it from here. Either way, I will work with whatever the concensus is.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC))

I would just like to point out that I have begun editing down the article as it currently stands, in accordance with some of the criticisms that it is excessively wordy. I would ask that those who wish to revert the page at least give me and others time to improve this article as it stands.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Looks pretty good so far but I would reinsert the statements about him reading Marx etc in his youth and the statement about the Allende government. The first especially seems important to understand Chavez. ValenShephard (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there's still information on him reading Marx, Lenin etc whilst stationed in Barinas, when he actually began to convert to the leftist cause, so I think the deletion was acceptable in this particular case.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Alrighty, keep up the good work and keep an eye here for any thoughts we have on your cuts. ValenShephard (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Checking in, I see no progress here on the issues I raised. The article is still too long, still doesn't cover issues according to due weight, still overrelies on one partisan source, and there are still serious prose issues such as I pointed out earlier. I haven't followed individual edits, but I see no attempt to correct the serious issues reflected in the actual content of the article. Specifically, the Early life and Military career sections have significantly deteriorated from the version written by Saravask long ago, and now contain not only overreliance on a partisan source, but an expansion of content not appropriate for an overview article, significant prose deterioration, and a proliferation of MOS errors not in earlier versions. Those sections were one part of this article that was in good shape before recent editing. I continue to suggest restoring earlier versions of those sections, and working in the sub-articles, but I hope those articles won't be damaged as well, since at least one of them is a Featured article. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia, I ask that you give us more time on this issue. I have obtained a copy of Christina Marcano and Alberto Barrera Tyszka's Hugo Chavez: The Definitive Biography, the less detailed, but also more neutral biography of Chavez, and plan to use this work to add to the sections which are so-far dominated by references from Bart Jones. As far as I am aware, these are the ONLY two English language biographies of Chavez, and it is therefore only fair that we use them in this article, rather than relying on a few internet articles from the media (which, it could certainly be argued, were just as non-partisan in one way or another as Jones's).
 * I also strongly contest, as seemingly do several other editors here, that the biographical sections on Chavez were in some way better before I began my additions: I would firmly argue that they were far too short and uninformative (the Wikipedia pages on other important political figures have greater information on earlier parts of their figures' lives). I'd also like to note that I have kept many of the references that were already existing then rather than deleting them.
 * I also contest, once again seemingly as others do, that the quality of prose has deteriorated. Fair enough, it might need some tweaking here and there, but I'd request that you help with this, rather than simply reverting this article to a state where the page was simply insufficient. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC))
 * I generally agree with Midnight. My college library, one of the most well stocked in the country, only features the two biographies which Midnight has mentioned. According to my tutor, they are both widely read and respected, especially the one by Bart Jones, which she called the most significant analysis of Chavez the individual currently available. Apart from that, the prose has improved and to say it hasn't simply isn't supported by looking at the material or other editors. Reverting is counter productive as in most cases, unless the article has been totally rubbished (which hasn't happened here). The article is a little too long, and this can be remedied by cutting down the sections which are much more appropriate elsewhere. ValenShephard (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Crime section
"I spent a substantial amount of time researching and constructing the crime section" User:JoelWhy why are you doing that on an article about a democratically elected president?


 * 1) Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, sports-related, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.[1]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.85.62 (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

put that info in the article about venezuelan crime statistics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.85.62 (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I must agree that I am unsure why a crime section is required in this page, after all, the British tabloid press made a huge deal over crime rates and "anti-social behaviour" under the Tony Blair regime but that doesn't mean that there is a section on crime in the UK there. It's simply not directly related to the president or his policies themselves.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC))


 * I can't tell who wrote what above, or decipher the meaning or the grammar, but as long as a multitude of reliable sources do associate rampant crime and corruption with Chavez, our article should as well. To leave it out violates undue; Midnight, there are plenty of sources that explain the relevance-- rampant crime and corruption are central issues to Chavez's governance.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe crime is an issue to the Chavez presidency, or Venezuela generally (long standing problems that fluctuate) not Chavez himself as an individual. It is difficult and dubious to associate such a wideranging and long term social issue with a single leader, I've never seen it done before. ValenShephard (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources say that crime was a continuing problem in Venezuela and Chavez was initially unable to address it, because law enforcement came under local control. But centralization of policing has reduced the problem.  TFD (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This should be mentioned more briefly in the sections on the Chavez presidency at best, not its own section. It would also be useful to get more historical perspective, it is too easy to appear to simply be laying the blame at Chavez himself for the high/increasing crime levels in some areas. ValenShephard (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In my personal opinion (and I am confident that somewhere there will be published sources that back me up here), right-wing and/or centrist reactionary media tend to trump up accusations of rising crime levels whenever left wing or “progressive” regimes to get into any sort of political control. The fact that the opposition to Chavez makes a big deal out of crime rates under him makes me very suspicious that this is true in this case as well. As such I suggest we be very cautious in our choice of sources for this section, although I still do not fully understand the need for it at all. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC))
 * You are probably correct in your analysis but that is not the most important thing, what is crucial is not to over play the issue of crime which is an issue of a whole nation (since before Chavez was born) and has fluctuated across a range of regimes of multiple ideologies throughout the modern history of Venezuela. It is very odd to have a crime section in the biography of an individual leader (we could also expand this analysis to the human rights section too, which is also better suited elsewhere). It can be mentioned briefly in his presidency section here, but it more suited in a sister article like Venezuela itself. What do we think? ValenShephard (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The stats are fine and sources have been found to explain them. Polemical writing however blames the crime rate on Chavez, yet never explains what supposed Chavez policy led to the increases.  No one has found a serious paper that explains this relationship.  TFD (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There have been dozens of reports regarding the sky rocketting crime rates in Venezuela since Chavez took office. Dismissing this as 'right wing propaganda' really encapsulates the POV issues with this article -- everything that reflects poorly on Chavez's presidency is part of some corporate oligarchy agenda.  If you have evidence to support your claim that these are trumped up charges, please present said evidence.  Otherwise, the issue should be properly addressed in this article.JoelWhy (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As TFD said, if there is no reliable source to pin the blame on policies invented by Chavez himself (let alone his government) then how can we include it here in its current form? ValenShephard (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The crime section never stated "Chavez is to blame for the increase in crime." It presented objective facts (and still manages to keep a few, despite being thoroughly gutted to fall more in line with the pro-Chavez talking points.)   But, thank you for reminding me why I stopped trying to fix this article and have remained content with simply maintaining the POV tag.JoelWhy (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The text reads, "During Chávez' administration, homicide rates have more than doubled, with one NGO finding the rate to have nearly quadrupled; the number of homicides increased from 6,000 in 1999 to 13,000 in 2007. Kidnappings have also become increasingly common. Caracas in 2010 had the world's highest murder rate." TFD (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is all entirely correct.JoelWhy (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That sentence which TFD quoted is probably all that is needed in the article, with maybe a few words to explain that it is a deep rooted Venezuelan (or even South American) problem. It is very odd to pin crime (or even human rights) issues to the leader of a country. There are thousand of others involved carrying out these abuses, who might have no connection to Chavez, his party or the leadership. ValenShephard (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There's an article on Hugo Chávez, the individual, and on Hugo Chávez' administration. By definition, any topic that is related with his administration as a whole but not specifically with the individual should be dealt with at the second article. In that article, there would be little discussion on whenever the section should be included, security is one of the core topics about an administration that should be mentioned, even if there were no great changes from one administration to the other. MBelgrano (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree there. I still think these issues should be briefly mentioned here (crime, human rights, foreign affairs) but would indeed be more suited to the administration article in present (or greater) detail. ValenShephard (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

We may compare this article with another one that gets the attention from more editors: Barack Obama and Presidency of Barack Obama. As you can see, the later includes many sections and information that are left outside from the former, gun control and cybersecurity among them MBelgrano (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is true. This is the only article I have come across where these domestic issues have been given prominence here (and as such implying it is the work of the individual). Some else mentioned Tony Blair further above, where crime (which was/is a huge issue in the UK) is not attributed in his article, and I suspect it would be removed if it was. I think we should get on this task soon. Maybe copy paste the current crime, human rights, media and foreign affairs sections into the presidency of Chavez article, and keep a brief, informative summary here in the presidency sections. There have been many mentions of the article being too long, so here is also a solution to this pretty agreed upon issue. What do we think? ValenShephard (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Crime and human rights have been major issues for Chavez and his administration. If the homicide rate had quadrupled under Obama, you would see a Crime section in Obama's article.  I am really growing tired of having this conversation over and over again.JoelWhy (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You said it yourself, his presidency is where it is needed. To give you an example, unemployment (one of the biggest issues of the US political sphere, as crime is in Ven.) is given a couple of sentences, noting that it increased past 10%. This is all this information deserves in the article of an individual. It is taken for granted that a leader is not wholly responsible for domestic (economic or crime issues included) issues, especially when no sources point towards that, as in this case. Some media refering to "crime increasing under Chavez" is not a strong enough link to Chavez as an individual, even if some would like that. Information of such detail on crime, foreign affairs, etc. deserve to be in the neglected sister articles of Chavez and Venezuela, where they logically fit; with a concise summary here (as in the Obama article). And I could be wrong, but you appeared to be supporting a cutting down of the length of this article. ValenShephard (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the crime discussion belongs in the presidency article. But we are going to summarize that article here. Crime will probably warrant a sentence or so in that summary. All of the major topics in the presidency article (human rights, economy, etc.) will need to be included in this article, only more briefly (because we are also going to be covering Chavez' early life, military career, etc. here). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Re, one sentence, wrong. Due weight to reliable sources.  Crime, corruption, consolidation of power, undermining of democratic processes, economic detioration-- all are major issues directly attributable to Chavez and his administration, and until due weight is given to reliable sources here, the article will remain POV.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We do in fact have a crime section and it does in fact say that the homicide rate doubled under Chavez. TFD (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Jrtayloriv, this is exactly what I meant. A summary of these sections in this article, and their full detail in the more appropriate sister articles. ValenShephard (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So, can someone get on this task, as I am very busy for the next month at least? :) ValenShephard (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

A FAQ List
This is obviously a hugely controversial subject with about twenty archives of talk now which very few people are going to wade thro. The only article I know that is more controversial than this is that on Global Warming where again feelings run high. There must be a great deal of repetition in the archived talk and I think a FAQ List for this article - like exists with the Global Warming article - would be very useful and avoid much needless waste of time repeating and refuting, or at least attempting to refute, various arguments. I am neither neutral on the subject nor knowledgable on the article so I am not the editor to produce such a list but some kindly editor who is both of these could save a lot of other editors much time.  Smokey TheCat  13:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is not even a remote similarity here with Global warming; that is a featured article, relies on good sourcing, and editors frequently must refute arguments based on sources. The problem here is no understanding of how to use sources correctly, no consensus on the issues that recur, no willingness to engage all reliable sources to write a neutral article, and article ownership; the issues here can't be addressed in an FAQ, and this article has never been stable or neutral (in the five years I've followed it)-- there is no starting point from which to generate an FAQ (the only thing I can think of is the frequent assertion that Chavez is a dictator, which has an answer, but those assertions usually come from IPs, and they probably won't read an FAQ anyway).  Further, there is nothing near the controversy of some other articles here; there is apathy and only a few editors involved, causing the disputes to remain stalled and policy to be avoided.  The issues here are behavioral more than content related. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sarah Palin has 63 archived talk pages and is similar to this article because there are numerous stories about her that people argue over. TFD (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, I started looking around articles about subjects regarded as highly important by "leftist" Latin Americans. Fidel Castro, for example, is called "president", not "dictator", while the article calls Fulgencio Batista (correctly) a dictator. If anyone click in its talk page, there will be a huge discussion over why he is called a president and not a dictator and you'll see the most out-of-this-world reasons. And most interesting of all: don't be surprise if you recognize editors who also appear in here. There is, and this is a fact, a small, but highly active, group of editors who prevent those articles from being improved at all cost. They neither work on them for real nor let anyone do anything too.
 * This article, for example: you don't need to call Chavez a "caudillo" or "quasi-dictator" so that I would regard it as impartial. Simply pointing out all changes to the country's national laws would be enough. That's all. But you can't do that. No one can. Why? Because there is not a single source that is regarded as reliable. I brought English-written and Portuguese-written sources and none of them are good enough. And it's just not that. These same editors prevent any real improvement by talking and talking and talking on the talk page with a clear intention of going nowhere until someone like me simply give up and leave. You doubt that? Take a look in this talk page. Not a single discussion goes anywhere. That's why I never bothered to make a single edit in the article itself. It would be a waste of time. You all have to decide once and for all what is your real purpose. You want an article or simply a piece of propaganda? --Lecen (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I don't think Chavez should be called a "dictator" in the article -- it's a pejorative term that demonstrates a bias. But, as you pointed out, people could draw their own conclusions if this article was permitted to objectively lay out the facts.JoelWhy (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * See reliable sources. If there is a consensus that a leader is a dictator, then we call him a dictator.  If there is not, then we do not.  TFD (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not the point of what we are discussing here. The issue is simple: write what happened. That's all. You don't need to write "Chavez' critics said that his new powers will make him a dictator". No need at all for that. P.S.: "If there is a consensus that a leader is a dictator, then we call him a dictator. If there is not, then we do not". TFD gave the same excuse in Fidel Castro's article. A guy who ruled a country for 50 years, where 15,000 people were executed and there is no freedom of speech nor respect to civil liberties... is a "president", not a dictator? --Lecen (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not an excuse, it is policy. We put into articles what sources say not what we believe.  If editors would accept policy then we could avoid a lot of content disputes.  TFD (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So... is there a consensus that says that Stalin and Hitler were dictators? Or one was simply "chairman" and the other "fuhrer"? --Lecen (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a consensus that they were dictators. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But no consensus with Fidel Castro?--Lecen (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, Lecen, I had to read the Castro thread to believe it. It's really hard to take an editor seriously when he/she's arguing that Castro isn't necessarily a dictator (or, at least, wasn't a dictator prior to arguably removing himself from power and installing his brother as the new dictator.)  As for Chavez, I would argue he has taken overt steps that foreshadow a possible move to dictatorship, but as it stands, that moment has not yet arrived (and possibly won't ever arrive.)JoelWhy (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that is not my position is it. In fact what you or I believe is irrelevant.  We are not here to determine who is or is not a dictator, but to present what reliable sources have to say.  And unless there is a consensus in reliable sources we cannot treat a statement as a fact.   Accusing other editors of having political positions when they are merely attempting to ensure neutrality is unhelpful.  TFD (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said before: "Because there is not a single source that is regarded as reliable" and "These same editors prevent any real improvement by talking and talking and talking on the talk page with a clear intention of going nowhere until someone like me simply give up and leave". So far I noticed that this small group is composed of TFD, ValenShephard and (sometimes) MBelgrano and Midnightblueowl. How many times has Sandy Georgia gave a list of thing to do or of what is wrong and the discussion went nowhere? 1,000 times so far? It doesn't matter, they use Wikipedia rules to suit their own needs and that means that no source will be ever good enough. --Lecen (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In political science there is little consensus about anything and therefore we are not able to present opinions as facts. We also must determine what weight various opinions should received based on how they are received in mainstream sources.  We need reliable sources to explain the relative acceptance of various views.  It may be that you want the article to be written from the perspective of the Venezuelan opposition or someone may wish it to be written from the perspective of the Venezuelan government.  We cannot do that.  TFD (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A pair of weeks ago Lecen provided a portuguese link which I disputed, noticing that the link was not mentioning all the viewpoints related to the specific issue. For critics, Chavez wanted extraordinary powers to become a dictator, for supporters, it was needed to deal with an ongoing emergency. Easy and clear to say who says what, attribute viewpoints as needed, and leave the final judgement to the reader itself. Of course, Lecen rejected it, and requested to be spared from the "bla bla" of representing other's opinions fairly because he and his country are so democracy lovers, so human rights supporters, so full of freedom of speech... in short, "because I say so". So now, he says that we should stick to facts, and let them talk by themselves? Take care: enumerating cherry-picked facts in order to lead the reader to a specific conclusion goes against NPOV as well. With the respect he shows to the viewpoints he does not agree with, not to mention to the users who don't agree with his proposals, it's likely that that's what he's really proposing.


 * Having said that, I remind people that this thread was about adding a FAQ or not, before Lecen completely derailed it with his rants. --MBelgrano (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't remember ever saying that Brazilians are "democracy-lovers" and "blah-blah". I'm quite sure that they would be quite happy if Lula became a dictator. What I did say was that I, personally, am a staunch supporter of democracy. What I do regard as unfortunate is that time has passed and you still maintain this odd behavior of not telling things as they did really happened. Do you want to add that Chavez has the power to rule with disregard to the Legislative branch for 14 months (not 1 or 2 months, but 14 months) because of rains? Do it, then. Makes no sense, but fine my be. --Lecen (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As I imagined: another discussion that went nowhere. That's always their objective. --Lecen (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would warn against trying to catagorize any editors here, especially lumping them all together, or saying that they have an overt "objective" outside of trying to expand this article honestly. ValenShephard (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Valen that there's no point in accusing anyone of their intentions. A better way to express this, Lecen, is that the impact is that we get nowhere with this article.JoelWhy (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Time and again I've pointed out that anyone who feels the local consensus of editors on this article is unrepresentative should use appropriate dispute resolution to get more input from the wider community. Rd232 talk 07:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Lecen, Chavez is not a dictator, the weight of reliable sources do not call him a dictator (unless they're engaging in hyperbole), and personalizing the discussion here won't advance the article. You continue to discuss editors, not content-- I understand the frustration, because progress is blocked here, but the way forward is to focus on sources, not editors.  Chavez was democratically elected and consolidated power in the executive and gained control of the judiciary because Venezuelan voters abstained en masse in an election.  Venezuelan voters did it (Carter helped, but that should be explored in another article-- which it's not adequately).  You would help your cause by using and focusing on the correct terminology: Chavez has consolidated power in the executive, undermined democratic processes, and gained control of the judiciary, all of which has led to serious issues with crime and corruption and economic deterioration.  That is what you'll find in reliable sources.  All could benefit here by focusing on sources, not editors.  (Rd, dispute resolution won't help because not enough outside editors care of speak Spanish and can delve into sources.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is an example of criticism written in a more neutral tone, from the Socialist International. Notice that it does not "seek to enter into polemics and the polarised atmosphere of local political life".  It also acknowledges "the responsibilities and failures of the previous system which opened the way to the current situation".  This type of writing is far more effective in criticizing Chavez.  TFD (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Am I understanding you correctly -- you think Socialist International is in any way, shape or form "neutral"?JoelWhy (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * TFD, there seems to be a contradiction here. Could you explain why you recommend a socialist source as "neutral", while you reject all mainstream highly reliable sources, which you label as "capitalist" (or something, I don't recall your exact terminology, but you accuse highly reliable sources of bias and reject them), even though there are scores of them and they all say the same thing?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Socialist International is biased against Chávez, they are related to several Venezuelan opposition parties like AD, UNT, PODEMOS and MAS. PSUV is not affiliated to Socialist International. JRSP (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not recommend them as neutral - they represent the opposition to Chavez. Merely that they provide an overview of the Chavez opposition without the hyperbole, i.e. "neutral tone".  You obviously have not read their report.  Incidentally, SandyGeorgia, I never called any source "capitalist".  TFD (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Socialist International is neautrally worded, this is true. The socialist international is not "socialist" in any sense near to Chavez, who is very much more radical than them. They are centre or centre left at best, and non challenge the market or private ownership as Chavez does. And it seems that the response of some editors here was to assume that something with "socialist" in its name must be bias 'towards' Chavez, when they are in fact in opposition. The socialist international are a reliable and respected organisation, even if they might have what sounds like a scary name to some editors here. Even so, although their wording is more neutral, the report sourced above is not great because it failed to engage at all (as it openly admits) with the ruling party or any of its members in the National Assembly. So I would still recommend that it taken with a pinch of salt. On second inspection, the report deals much more with Venezuela generally, and not Chavez himself, so would be more suitable in Chavez's sister articles, or the article of Venezuela itself, if at all. ValenShephard (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Academic source on Chavez test
Can you guys tell me if you can access this PDF? 

I have a feeling you won't be able to, but it's worth a try. If none of you can, I will attempt in the next few months to make use of it. It covers the rise of Chavez and his policies in academic detail (without any rhetoric or unbalanced language). ValenShephard (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can email this to you if you enable email (see Help:Email confirmation). If anyone else wants it, please ask Valen to pass it on to you. Rd232 talk 23:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you can access it. Well, I am just too busy to make use of it myself (exams in 3 days) so I would appreciate if any of you could get on top of it. Like rd232 said above, I can also email the PDF file to you if you request it. I think the source is pretty good because it goes into details of Chavez the individual, issues of his presidency and policies. Good luck. ValenShephard (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought you didn't have access :) good luck w/exams. Rd232 talk 23:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Chávez and Gadhafi
Lately, Chávez' support for Gadhafi has been mentioned quite frequently in media all over the world. Is this something that should be mentioned in the article? - Tournesol (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It may be better to talk about it at Foreign relations of Venezuela. MBelgrano (talk) 11:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is an article today that says Chavez offered to mediate between Gaddafi and the rebels, but "details...are scant". Earlier reports that Gaddafi had fled to Venezuela were false.  It would seem odd if Chavez had supported Gaddafi, when over the past decade, Britain had supplied weapons to him, and trained his soldiers and police, while Tony Blair and Condoleeza Rice were frequent visitors to Libya, seeing Libya as vital to the war on terrorism.  Do you have any more detailed sources about the relationship?  TFD (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Chavez has been friends with Gaddafi from some time. It's not exactly a secret (one of a number of dictators Chavez is good buddies with.)  Direct quote from Chavez made this week: ""I'm not going to condemn him (Gadhafi)...I'd be a coward to condemn someone who has been my friend."JoelWhy (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a link to the transcript of the speech? TFD (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have a transcript of the speech. It was televised, so I'm sure you could find it on Youtube (albeit in Spanish.)  But, if you need further evidence of Chavez's friendship with the Libyan dictator, this is from a Venezuelan diplomatic cable (http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/10/09CARACAS1284.html):


 * Chavez hosted a number of bilateral discussions with African countries, with the feature event a lengthy ceremony between Chavez and Libyan President Gaddafi. The two Presidents congratulated each other on their "revolutions," with Chavez asserting, "What Simon Bolivar is to the Venezuelan people, Gaddafi is to the Libyan people." Chavez also awarded Gaddafi the "Orden del Libertador," Venezuela's highest civilian decoration, and presented him with a replica of Simon Bolivar's sword.JoelWhy (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * How is this more notable than Gaddafi's close friendship with the American president, George W. Bush, or the British PM, Tony Blair? TFD (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What does that have to do with anything? You're clearly a fan of Chavez. You've just learned that Chavez considers Gaddafi the 'Simon Bolivar of Libya'.  You can either allow facts to inform and alter your opinions or not.  But, do you really want the standard for good behavior to be whether such behavior is considered moral or immoral by none other than George W. Bush?!JoelWhy (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * With reference to the current events in Libya, the issue is pretty straight forward. The relationship is more notable than that of Gaddafi with Bush or Blair (ignoring the fact that I don't see any evidence the relationships are comparable) in that Chavez has gotten directly involve, asking to "mediate" the civil uprising.JoelWhy (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I am not a fan of Chavez. But neither am I a fan of those who supported Gaddafi for the last ten years and backed him when he came to power.  The same people who backed Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Ceaucescu, Mubarek, etc., until they didn't, then claimed that they had never supported them.  Let's report history, not re-write it.  TFD (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, don't label other editors as "fan of Chávez" remember that WP:AGF is a fundamental behavioral guideline. All governements in Venezuela since 1969 have had good relations with Gaddafi as well as with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malasia and all other OPEC countries so Foreign relations of Venezuela is a better place for dealing with Chávez-Gaddafi or more generally Libya-Venezuela relations. And keep in mind that notable is not the same than recent. JRSP (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am assuming good faith. TFD likes Chavez.  I'm not accusing him of anything.  As for the relationship with Gaddaffi, I haven't seen anything to indicate that previous administrations had the same type of close, personal relationship that it appears Chavez has with Gaddafi.JoelWhy (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, hadn't seen TDF's response. My mistake, you don't like Chavez.  I can't imagine where I possibly could have gotten that idea from...JoelWhy (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am neither a fan of nor do I dislike Chavez. The point of Wikipedia is not to build up people we like and tear down people we dislike, which is why I always insist on using neutral sources.  I wish to read articles that present topics in a neutral manner, rather than pushing political points.  If I want sources that confirm my views, then I can read a blog.  Please trust readers to form their own opinions based on neutral presentation of facts.  TFD (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree whole-heatedly with this...and, this is precisely why I continue to criticize this article. It's full of biased sources and biased writing.JoelWhy (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then remove them. Do not try to balance bad sources with other bad sources.  TFD (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been prevented from removing the bad sources because other editors insist sites like Venezuela Analysis are unbiased. And, what "bad sources" are you referring to that I'm trying to add??JoelWhy (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have looked through the discussion page for the last 6 months and cannot find anything from ``Venezuela Analysis`` you want removed. In fact I cannot find anything in the article from ``Venezuela Analysis`` that cannot be found in other sources.  If there is anything you wish removed, then please tell me what it is, rather than make general accusations.  TFD (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to a March 3rd editorial in Venezuelanalysis which I assume reflects Chavez's views of Gaddafi. TFD (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The West has a long history of using and cosying up to dictators. In the last decade that includes Gaddafi (remember Blair embracing him?). Chavez has equally built links with reprehensible governments, particularly oil producers who are part of OPEC (which includes Gaddafi's Libya). In addition, Chavez has a keen interest in South-South cooperation, and Gaddafi has long been a big cheese in that area within Africa, so there's an additional reason to hold his nose and make nice. Realpolitik is best done with nosepegs... Rd232 talk 19:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Bad referencing!

 * "According to the publications El Espectador and Le Monde diplomatique, rising crime in rural and urban areas is partly due to increased cross-border activity by Colombian right-wing paramilitary groups like Águilas Negras.[251]"
 * -- Lemoine, Maurice. "Venezuela murder mystery."Le Monde diplomatique. August 2010. Retrieved 3 October 2010.

Ref 251 DOES NOT point DIRECTLY to the Colombian publication "El Espectador", it is from a poorly referenced article on LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE that fails to offer an actual reference from EL ESPECTADOR, the author (Maurice Lemoine) provides this as reference instead: "(4) A group that reformed after the demobilisation of paramilitary organisations under the controversial “Justice and Peace” law of 2005", which is not ---here we go again!! -- a DIRECT REFERENCE TO EL ESPECTADOR. Furthermore, on his article he talks about some 20,000 paramilitaries being based in Venezuela, which can only be a guess, and a very poor estimation at that, considering it is MONUMENTALLY STUPID to assume ALL OF THE COLOMBIAN PARAMILITARIES were in Venezuelan territory! -- but more astonishingly, ALL OF THE COLOMBIAN PARAMILITARIES to be causing havoc in Venezuela as the Wikipedia article puts it "rising crime in RURAL and URBAN areas is partly due to increased cross-border activity by Colombian right-wing paramilitary groups".

So for the sake of correct referencing, ref 251 should only talk about what MAURICE LEMOINE has to say on his LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE article. 202.180.106.1 (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Overthrow through elections
The last sentence in the lead section states: "His opponents have attempted to overthrow him on various occasions, both through elections and through military coups, each time unsuccessfully".

How can one be overthrown through elections? Isn't the election the legal way of changing government? For example was George Bush overthrown by Barack Obama in 2008 elections?

And as a side-note: the article suffers from some serious POV issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.104.3.11 (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Various people have commented on this article having a bias, both pro and anti-Chavez. It is something that editors are addressing, slowly but (I hope) surely. As for the specific usage of the term "overthrow", I think that you're right on this point. "Remove from power" might be a better term to use.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC))
 * "Remove from power" would then sound like downplaying/legitimizing the coup. Split the phrase, they dont belong lumped together since its apples and oranges. A coup attempt and and opposiing via elections shouldn't be in the same breath. -86.157.81.232 (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I was a poor election of words ("overthrow" imply the use of force), but the idea is correct. The lead is a summary, and it states that his opponents want to remove him, both by legal and illegal ways. The ways are different, but the goal is the same, they are not "apples and oranges". Simply add a little more clarification on the difference between both things. MBelgrano (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The use of the word "overthrow" in conjunction with "elections" is completely within accepted usage. The first dictionary definition is: "to depose, as from a position of power; overcome, defeat, or vanquish:". There is no mention of use of force being a requirement in order for an overthrow to take place. 208.180.38.9 (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.38.9 (talk)

Other bios and ongoing POV
I see no improvement in the POV here, but an unrelated discussion about bio sources elsewhere prompted me to go searching for examples. Hopefully editors working here will read and note the substantial differences between these bios and the Wikipedia article. I am not suggesting they necessarily be used as sources, in fact some of them would not be reliable sources-- just noting that they don't attempt to whitewash, and manage to stay focused on important issues with a manageable length, while mentioning the "good" and the "bad" (the latter being eliminated from Wikipedia):
 * http://www.notablebiographies.com/news/Ca-Ge/Ch-vez-Hugo.html
 * http://www.biography.com/articles/Hugo-Ch%C3%A1vez-193225
 * http://www.lcsc.edu/elmartin/historybehindthenews/mccoy/bio.html
 * http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/presidentsofsouthamerica/p/09HChavez.htm

Regardless of reliability of these sources, they provide indicators to easily sourced information missing in this article, and ideas of ways to introduce balance and brevity to this article. Some of the commentary here about the Marcano book relative to Jones is interesting, although not reliable. Foreign Affairs also reviewed the Marcano book here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * More missing information-- easily accessible via a multitide of sources-- here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the links Sandy, they should be of some help in the work I and others are doing on this page. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC))


 * The biographical articles are all tertiary sources, but provide an example of how the article could be written. The International Crisis Group article could be a good source for analysis in the article.  TFD (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The use of the word "overthrow" in conjunction with "elections" is completely within accepted usage. The first dictionary definition is: "to depose, as from a position of power; overcome, defeat, or vanquish:".  There is no mention of use of force being a requirement in order for an overthrow to take place. 208.180.38.9 (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism
Should there be a section about Anti-Americanism? Hugo Chavez is easily the most anti-american Latin or South American dictator. It would only need to be 1 or 2 paragraphs and could have a link at the top to United States – Venezuela relations. --Ryan Vesey (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably more appropriate to add this to the Foreign Policy section.JoelWhy (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Dictator? --IANVS (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mr Vesey has a clear anti-Chavez bias methinks... (Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC))

coño yo soy venezolano y juro al lado de miles de compatriotas que este hombre es un dictador, ya ni tenemos leche en las tiendas, por dios Wikipedia este hombre no es un presidente de verdad, es un dictador que piensa que venezuela es su casa.

Im from Venezuela and I and millions of venezuelans think like me, that Chavez is a DICTATOR, dont be fooled, he is. We don{t even have milk on the stores because of his bad governing. this man is not a democratic leader, open your eyes.--201.230.84.135 (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * My wife came back from Maracaibo last week. She was shocked by the staple foods (including milk) missing from the grocery store aisles.JoelWhy (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a forum, please stay focused on article. Said that, let me go drink a glass of milk, there's plenty of it in my fridge. JRSP (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Then, let me clarify -- the article should discuss food shortages. There was an individual (and his various sockpuppets) who tried to add this information, but it was removed (and, givent the format he added the information, appropriately so.)  But, these food shortages are not something that Venezuela experienced anytime in modern history until the current administration.  Chavez has pushed to control the distribution of food, leading to dramatic spike in food costs.  (And, please don't tell me you're disputing the fact that the nation is facing food shortages because you were able to find some milk...)JoelWhy (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I cannot find any current reliable sources for this. TFD (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the ironic tone of my previous post but the point is that wikipedia is not a forum. The fact that I'm able to find milk is as valid as any story about some else being unable to find it. This thread has become a mess of personal comments starting with anti-Americanism and ending with the relation between dictatorship and food scarcity; we can't base wikipedia articles on user anecdotes and comments. BTW, discussion about Grundle2600 additions can be found at this talk page archives. JRSP (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not basing this on anecdotal accounts -- I was recounting an anecdote that is supported by news reports. For example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/7849749/Chavez-pushes-Venezuela-into-food-war.html JoelWhy (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is from June. You said that this remains a problem, which might be true, but we would need sources to support that.  TFD (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of "Policy" section
So far, a large section of this article deals not with biographical information about Chávez (which this article should by its very nature be primarily concerned with) and instead deals with policies instituted under his governance. This latter information, which is contained within the lengthy "Policy" section (with its sub-sections dealing with the economy, human rights, media, crime rates and foreign policy) should all properly belong to the page at Presidency of Hugo Chávez, which is designed to deal more with his and his government's rule. I propose that these sections be moved to that page, where they would be better suited. That is not to say that elements of them should not be included in the biographical sections about Hugo's presidential life (because of course they should), but as whole sections in themselves, I really feel that they do not have a place here. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC))
 * Disagree, not only are his policies relevant to his bio, in his case even more so than for other leaders that info is relevant because of the consolidation of power in the Executive and weakening of other democratic institutions and the judiciary. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply that his goivernment's policies were not relevant to his biography, but that these can perhaps be dealt with better in the above biographical sections about his life as president. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC))
 * I don't understand your argument, Sandy. First of all "consolidation of power in the Executive and weakening of other democratic institutions" is an opinion advanced by some sources but we cannot say there is a consensus about that. Further, even if this were true, the point is that this article should be more about Chávez the individual, there is a lot of details that could be moved to the Presidency article. JRSP (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this article doesn't need to go into extensive details, but you can't separate the man from his policies. So, for example, the foreign policy section shouldn't go into as much detail as a separate page devoted to his foreign policy, but this article should still provide a summary.JoelWhy (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Religion
At the categories at the bottom of the page he is listed under Venezuelan Roman Catholics. This is not correct, but he was a former Roman Catholic. Peppermintschnapps (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reference to back that statement up? He still cites Christ as a revolutionary and I assume worships in a Roman Catholic manner. Sure, he disagrees with the orthodoxies and management of the Roman Catholic Church and the Papacy but that does not automatically strip him of his faith. See for instance liberation theology, a socialist variant of Roman Catholicism that rejects much of the Papacy. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC))


 * Like most Venezuelans, Chávez is a non practicing Roman Catholic. He was raised as one (he even was an altar boy in his hometown), and as far as I know he has never made a public apostasy. JRSP (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It has no importance in either case, per WP:BLPCAT. It does not matter what does Chavez do in his private life, such as to in which religion he believes, but whenever his religion is significant for his notable activities and public life. Cambalachero (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

24.41.66.234 (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC) o_0

A Decade of Propaganda? The BBC’s Reporting of Venezuela.
[http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5003 A Decade of Propaganda? The BBC’s Reporting of Venezuela.] "Researchers at the University of the West of England, UK, have exposed ongoing and systematic bias in the BBC’s news reporting on Venezuela." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.129.27.48 (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's so bad it's funny. I started to shoot it down item by item, and then realized I was reading the usual Venezuelanalysis.com propaganda, which fully explains the slant of that article.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * While the VA article may very well reflect the research paper it describes, we would need to establish the degree of acceptance the paper has received, and would be best to use academic sources. TFD (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation
It does seem odd to include the fact that he's a heterosexual. It's like indicating he has 5 fingers on each hand -- if he only had 3 fingers, you would include it, but it's assumed he has 5. (For the record, I'm not implying that homosexuality is a deformity, only that the overwhelming majority of people are heterosexual, and therefore it's generally assumed unless otherwise indicated.) Is there really a Wiki policy saying this info should be included?JoelWhy (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is such a policy, but I can't for the life of me find it at the moment (it states something like "avoid heteronormativity"). In general, I support the inclusion of the statement that he is heterosexual. Otherwise it could also be implied that he is bisexual but favours relationships with women (and has married two of them). About 80% of the world's population might be predominantly heterosexual, but that still leaves about 20% who are bisexual or predominantly homosexual. 20% is a hell of a lot when you look at the millions upon millions of humans in this world. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC))


 * And when we talk about Chavez, his sexual orientation is noteworthy because... ? Cambalachero (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure where you came up with that 20% figure, but it's way off. "The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households. The Family Research Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual." The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes." http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx
 * As I said above, we may as well include that he has two nipples, lest anyone infer that he has a third nipple hidden away somewhere. But, if there's a Wiki policy saying otherwise, then it should stay (but, I sure would like to be pointed to that policy, because I've certainly never seen it.)JoelWhy (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC).


 * There is no such a policy. I searched for "heterosexual" in wikipedia namespace, and only found articles for deletion or similar stuff. And, in any case, it's redundant: it was said next to the paragraph detailing that he was married. On the level of general ideas, we may consider that a man (Chavez or anyone else) may be married and still be homosexual for some reason, but on the level of the real world, if someone has an heterosexual marriage then he's heterosexual, period, and it's up to the conspiracy theorist to try to prove otherwise. Cambalachero (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Such a policy exists. I saw it with my own eyes. True I can no longer find it, and suspect it may have been deleted in the last month or so, but it did exist, and as I previously remarked, referred to something along the lines of "avoid heteronormativity". There are editors on Wikipedia who have, in the past, been very hostile to those who argued that we must avoid heteronormativity on Wikipedia, and I suspect that one of them might have deleted it. And Cambalachero, with all due respect to yourself, your argument just doesn't work. I could compile a long list of homosexual men who were married to women... for a start Oscar Wilde ? How about Paul O'Grady ? I could go on. Now I'm not arguing that Chavez is homosexual (as there is every indication that he is hetero), but still, being married to a woman is by no means an indication of heterosexuality.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC))


 * Let's put it this way: I do not believe there is such a policy, now could I find it, so I challenge it's existence. Unless you can point "the policy is here", I will not follow a non-existent policy I have never seen or find. Until then, I wll consider Chavez's sexual orientation an issue of his own privacy, which has no significance for his public life, so saying this is both a privacy breach and redundant information. As for your list, size alone means nothing: consider both the size of the list of homosexual men married to women, and the list of heterosexual men married to women, and consider if there's really a reasonable doubt to justify an explicit clarification. Cambalachero (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed.JoelWhy (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I came to this page after reading the inexplicable non sequitur that Chavez has had three significant heterosexual relationships in his life. After reading through these paragraphs, it's obvious that Midnightblueowl has a large gay chip on his shoulder.  If he cannot separate his duty of neutrality from his personal desire to re-make the world in his own image, he shouldn't be here.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.165.68.225 (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This whole issue is redundant as no-one has put forth any reliable source that Chavez is indeed a heterosexual. His marriages to women don't count, they could be lavender marriages as well (not that I find it likely). All that we know for sure is that Chavez has had several marriages to women, anything else is just guessing. JJohannes (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

FARC
Should there be a section on Chavez's relationship with the FARC in general?

80.229.165.4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC).
 * Chavez's (alleged) support for FARC is probably worth a mention (as are many, many things that are not yet encompassed in this article), but it is certainly not of sufficient note to warrant a whole section. After all, it is simply not an integral part of his presidency or his life, but an allegation made to discredit him in the opposition press (with, as far as I am aware, no evidence to support it). (Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC))
 * "No evidence to support it"? Don't you read the news (Here and here)? I also recommend taking a look at this. --Lecen (talk) 12:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The source for the FARC connection is a report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. The IISS also reported that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and a nuclear weapons program.  Note that sources about FARC do not make this claim.  See for example FARC's entry in the 2007 Encyclopedia of terrorism (p. 271).  TFD (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See also FARC files. Rd232 talk 15:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just wonderful to see how desperate you are to invalidate any source that says anything against Chávez. --Lecen (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There are many partisan sources making accusations, but we must wait until reliable sources report the accusations as facts before we represent them as factual. You might want to revisit how these types of sources described Saddam hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda.  I do not find these stories repeated in mainstream writing about either Chavez or FARC.  TFD (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen no evidence that the the IISS is partisan, and the Sun Sentinel is a mainstream news source. But, as always -- stories critical of Chavez = automatic bias. JoelWhy (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * While the Sun-Sentinel is a reliable news source, the link provided was to a column. The fact that you agree with the opinions in the column does not elevate it to rs.  If you want the article to say that Chavez supports FARC, find a news or academic journal article that says so.  TFD (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Cancer
Chavez has cancer to the prostate, we should include that info — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.118.114.29 (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Pathetic
This is a decidely partisan article. Almost every possible subject of dispute is completely loaded towards Chavez. I'm usually impressed with Wikipedia, but feel let down on articles relating to Venezuela and recent history. Many good people, including many of Chavez's former intimates, no longer support him due to his autocratic ways. But to read wikipedia, one would think only the rich and upper middle classes could possibly oppose the great chavez.

According to this, basically all of Chavez's opposition are upper and middle classes who are upset they don't have power? What about their belief in democracy, and checks and balances, and rule of law? The fear everyone feels in Venezuela with the crime out of control? The rolling blackouts?

As for the 2002 Coup, it makes no mention of the role of Chavez's ordering of Plan Avila (calling out the military to stop//control/crush the demonstrations--a violation of his own constitution)in leading the heads of all the military branches, and the secret police, to abandon him publically and call on his resignation. Instead, they are portrayed here as military leaders in bed with wealthy business interests, according to this article. Funny, considering when Carmona and other businessmen opportunistically grabbed power and showed insufficient respect for democracy the military abandoned them, creating the vacuum that allowed chavez to come back.

And to have no mention of FARC is absurd. I can no longer visit my wife's family in Tachira as the chances of kidnapping would be far too high (even higher than they have become all over Venezuela in the last decade) due to FARC's presence there. A presence which begin under Chavez's rule and with his tacit support, to the dismay and often misery of the local people.

Shameful...I have my own opinions of Chavez, obviously, but I know others who still support him. All I ask, and what readers deserve, is a for non biased article. If I had the time I would attempt it, but for now I must work on smaller articles in order to balance those and see if it is even possible.

205.130.226.102 (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Rory

Yes, it is, and yes, it has-- and what is more pathetic is that POV and other maintenance tags are continuously removed without addressing the issues. Tags restored (again). Archived issues unaddressed restored (again).
 * Whilst I would disagree that this page is "decidely partisan", I think it fair to say that yes, this page does certainly have a bias that is more pro-Chavez than against him. That is partly because I - who am responsible for much of the article - take a pro-Chavez stance. My bias has crept in, and for that I apologise, and I am working on trying to remove it. On the other hand however, there are editors who have consistently tried to push an anti-Chavez agenda, using western media sources that are decidedly anti-Chavez, whilst all the time they label it as "neutral", something it quite frankly isn't. We're all just going to have to work together on this one, and I welcome your cooperation.


 * To answer your more specific points about areas of neutrality, yes we must have information on those Venezuelans who have argued that Chavez is undermining representative democratic institutions (and I think that this can already be amply seen in the section on "Origins of the opposition movement"). It would be foolish however to think that there is not a huge race/class issue at play here regarding the opposition movement: academic investigation from both pro-Chavez sources like Wilpert and more neutral sources like Cannon have all established (quite convincingly in my view) that the opposition to Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution is dominated by middle and upper class individuals. By trying to dismiss this and say that it isn't worth mentioning in the article (and I'm not accusing you of this, just warning of it), one would be taking a very anti-Chavez stance. As it currently stands (as of today), I think that the "opposition" section does a good job of reflecting both points of view, but I welcome further debate on this issue.


 * Regarding your information on the 2002 coup, I would agree, and have tagged that section of the article as requiring much needed work, using academic sources as a basis. We should also have mention of FARC, but little more than a few sentences are really warranted: there simply is no good evidence of a connection between the two as of yet. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC))

Yes, certainly upper and middle class are part of the opposition...however they are not the only ones of course. I'm glad you agree about the need for serious work on the 2002 Coup article. Starting next week I plan on doing a little work on the Miraflores violence part of it to even it out and then go from there (depending on how my edits and/or suggestions are received). Right now there is no Plan Avila, no National Gaurd, and the police are portrayed as opposition auxilaries when without them and their teargas the Chavistas would have been overrun.

One problem I see with this article is of analysis, courtesy of Gregory Wilpert (who's wife is a high ranking Chavez official and who's work on Venezuelanalysis was done with Venezuelen public funds (ie from Chavez)), is often slipped in after facts or reports to paint them in a decidely pro Chavez light. He is certainly not a neutral source, yet he is used here often to provide analysis after controversial or important events/actions/movements. I realize I am probably not the first to bring up this question of Wilpert and the v.a. website--which is why I was especially surprised he is used as a legitimate source.

The intro here is very well done, for starters though.

173.66.128.156 (talk)Rory —Preceding undated comment added 18:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC).


 * Thank you for your kind words about the introduction, I feel that it is pretty nuetrally written. I concur that Wilpert is obviously a pro-Chavez source, but that is not to say that his works are not scholarly or intelligently put together. His Changing Venezuela By Taking Power is easily one of the best studies of the policies implemented by the Chavez administration yet published in the English language, largely because of the detail that it goes into. I would like to put on the table the idea that maybe Wilpert is supportive of Chavez precisely because he has studied the regime in such depth and believes that on the whole it is beneficial for the Venezuelan people? Nevertheless, as long as we keep in mind that Wilpert is a pro-Chavez source, in the same way that the western media is (overwhelmingly) an anti-Chavez source, but still search for the facts in his analysis, then I don't think we shall run into too many problems.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC))

Lead
This is oddly par for the course for this page. Someone (me) makes an effort to improve the page, no long-term contributors say peep about it for a while or contribute anything relevant, but the minute the relevant problem tag is removed on the basis that it's no longer need, the tag is slapped back on. Besides which "Lead hasn't been improved at all. It remains heavily biased and far too long." is rudely dismissive as well as inaccurate and unhelpful. The lead is not "far too long" - there's a lot of ground to cover, it could be marginally shorter but it's fine. As for "heavily biased"? Well if it's that bad, don't you think you should fix it or explain the problem? Rd232 talk 18:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no dicsussion of any of these issues on this discussion page. Unless reasons are provided for the tags, they should be removed.

Before replacing them the editor should explain why issues need to be addressed. TFD (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, before arbitrarily removing the tags, the editor should obtain a consensus. That wasn't done (and there is no consensus.)


 * I haven't bothered working to fix it because I'm tired of wasting my time trying to bring some neutrality to this article only to have it transformed into more pro-Chavez propaganda. (This is not directed at you, just at the general statement regarding this article.) I spent a substantial amount of time researching and constructing the crime section only to have gutted to become a fantasy piece. Like I said in the past, if this page is to remain dedicated to praising Chavez, then the tags have to remain warning anyone reading it, lest they be tricked into thinking this article meets Wiki guidelines.


 * If you want specifics, start with this sentence: "Detractors within the Organization of American States, European Union, United Nations, U.S. State Department, and others, criticize Chávez for alleged human rights violations, while supporters point to improvements in constitutional and legal rights, poverty reduction, health care, women's rights, and the treatment of indigenous peoples under his presidency." This really captures the tone of the entire article -- diminishing criticisms and emphasizing supposed achievements.JoelWhy (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

JoelWhy (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems neutral to me, because he explains how supporters and detractors describe him. Can you propose a more neutral phrasing of the sentence?  I can post it to the NPOV noticeboard for broader input.  TFD (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * " arbitrarily removing" tags - more dismissiveness, which I don't appreciate. I already explained that I revised and improved the lead a while ago, and then waited some time to see if anyone would respond. No-one did, so I eventually removed the relevant tag. Furthermore, since the tag was applied to a substantially different version of the lead, it doesn't need consensus to remove, since tag justification should apply to the current article, not a substantially different previous version. Rd232 talk 18:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The bias starts from word-one: "Detractors". A more appropriate term would be "critic". Then you have "alleged" human rights violations, while the laundry list of supposed improvements are presented as if they are fact rather than opinion.  Some of it is fact.  But, "improvements...in legal rights", for example, is definitely in dispute considering that many of the supposed "improvements" only appear on paper (as detailed by Human Rights Watch and other organizations.)  Also, it appears as if the only criticism of Chavez has been his human rights record, yet he has achieved a long list of improvements.JoelWhy (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It would seem to me that since the sentence is unsourced, it would be best to remove it. I think the intention was to show that Chavez is controversial, he faces strong opposition from some quarters but has strong support from others, not that anyone was trying to give greater weight to one side.  TFD (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The sentence puts the human rights issues high up in the lead, naming a number of important institutions raising concerns about them, whilst the improvements are merely attributed to "supporters". The topic of the sentence can certainly be handled better, but it's fairly even-handed in its current imperfection. Rd232 talk 11:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * With respect to the length of the lead, it's supposed to be short no matter how much the article needs to cover. Just keep leaving out detail until it's short enough. Warren Dew (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "short" is relative. See LEAD (though the meaning of "number of paragraphs" obviously interacts with their length; a number here are quite short). Rd232 talk 00:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The paragraphs in the current lead are of average to long length. For an article of this length, LEAD says there should be 2-3 paragraphs.  There are currently 5 paragraphs.  That means the lead is about twice as long as it should be.  That justifies keeping the tag there until it's fixed.Warren Dew (talk) 05:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the first 3 paragraphs are of normal length for a large lead, and the last 2 relatively short. Rd232 talk 09:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the article is fairly long and the lead reflects that. Also, I would argue its length is based upon its detail which all happens to be notable. But I wouldn't say it is too long; and anyhow, length is not a big issue right now. More importantly, I think the content is fine, it represents sources present in the article, is well written and clear and addresses the concerns of critics by stating them clearly and without any judgement. ValenShephard (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is tediously too long (11,000 words from about 6,000 a few months ago), goes into detail that doesn't belong here (belongs in sub-articles) while neglecting detail that does belong here (Foreign policy, domestic policy, crime, corruption, democracy, etc), and the lead is most certainly much too long (I haven't begun to document the article POV yet, only discussing length here). Most readers will not care about the level of detail given in the lead on some Venezuelan issues, but will want to know some info that we've conveniently left out-- like how his popularity is declining in Venezuela as a sample (I don't care, but something has to be there that reflects what most people hear and know about Chavez, and right now we have obscure details of Venezuelan politics that only we know and care about). The purpose of the lead is to provide a broad overview that will entice the reader to read more, but short and simple-- it's not to convey a POV about the subject. Methinks that the article is so bad that the lead is trying to be the article here. And talk about POV, why the detail about the caracazo in the lead of Chavez's article (that was eons ago), mentioning those deaths but not deaths attributed to Chavez in his various debacles, coups, fiascos? And why do we care what he promised when elected in 1998? That was 13 years ago!! Excess detail and POV lead in a too-long POV article that now relies heavily on one source. Please revert to an earlier version; the article has seriously deteriorated in the last six months. Joelwhy, I removed the tag about the lead being too long because the entire article is too long and it's very poorly written, while the significant POV and outdatedness is much more important now. I hope that's OK, but if we use the Multiple issues template, there are about a dozen of them now, and the fact that the article is POV will get lost among the other problems, and I think it doesn't serve our readers to know that the lead is too long, while it does serve them to know the article is out of date and POV. (I read this section of the talk page last, so just noticed you had placed the tag and the lead was discussed.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 10:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. Length of the lead (and article in general) isn't an important issue compared to POV.  I'm out of town for the rest of the week with spotty internet connection, but I'll check back in next week.JoelWhy (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Context
The article currently has zero text that I can find discussing how Chavez came to have the power he has in Venezuela today, and how that led to his consolidation of power, rule by decree, excessive use of cadenas, and excessive use of enabling acts. Until that is provided here-- and it is covered by every reliable source, take your pick-- the average reader will have no understanding of Venezuela and Chavez today. The Venezuelan people chose to abstain from voting en masse and handed him that power-- he is not a dictator, the abstention by voters allowed him to consolidate power. The failure to discuss this is part of the most glaring POV in this article, and is the incidentally the question I most often hear from the average gringo who doesn't understand what happened in Venezuela. All reliable sources cover that issue; Wiki leaves it out. This article cannot be neutral without a discussion of consolidation of power in the executive and deterioration in the democracy, and control of the judiciary. Take your pick of reliable sources-- they all cover it, as I documented long ago in my list of sources. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article I linked to has the political and historical context surrounding the granting of this enabling law and that is all it promised. ValenShephard (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Article has become private property
Recent edits have once more revealed that the article is owned by staunch Chávez's supporters. Not even mention of the Venezuelan Parliament having granted enough power to Chávez rule by decree can be added. And please don't come tell me that because it was written "absolute power". If a word was the problem, you would have simply changed the sentence a bit, not erased it completely.

The reasons given to them vary in nature but can be summed in a simple sentence: "We will not allow any kind of edit to the article that we consider an offense to Chávez."

Is that ridiculous? Certainly. But is has gone too far. If the purpose of this article is to simply be used as a propaganda tool, shouldnt' we simply add one huge link to the official Chavez's website? --Lecen (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. Some editors just have a problem accepting that Hugo Chavez is not the only Venezuela article on Wikipedia (look at the way some insist on using its talk page - as if WP:VEN didn't exist!), and that WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE still applies to WP:BLP subjects you really, really don't like. Rd232 talk 08:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think a far bigger problem is that this article is largely based not upon books that study Chavez (i.e. those of Bart Jones etc), but upon internet articles pulled from all over the place. I'm gradually attempting to rectify this, and I ask that we all try and keep this article as neutral as possible.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Better (more academic/comprehensive) sources will be an improvement, but in doing that watch that this article doesn't get out of sync with the related/daughter articles (Military career of Hugo Chavez etc) - it's best to update both, and probably best to update/improve the daughter articles first, before updating the summary here. Rd232 talk 20:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been primarily updating this article first, but if I get time I will go and add to the more in-depth articles afterward.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC))
 * And that approach was wrong, and what caused this article to grow too long and become more POV: see Bart Jones reviews below, and Jones is by no means a scholarly source. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As there doesn't appear to have been any particular explanation of what it is that is non-neutral in this article, I shall remove the tag.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Absolutely, positively not. This article is, if anything, more POV than before, and there has not at all been a consensus reached to remove this tag.  As stated in  Tag is to remain on this article until the extreme bias is removed.JoelWhy (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it best if we start a new conversation on the nature of POV in this article then. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC))
 * I think it best if you read archives before removing tags. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have digital access to pretty much all English language journals (dozens mention Chavez, looking a quick search) so if I have some time during the next few months I will engage again (after a very busy period away from wiki) and try to add some of the information here. I hope it doesn't disappoint some editors here that these journals concur with and expand upon statements already sourced here. Hope that helps. ValenShephard (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Too Much Trivia
I think I've been pretty clear on my position that this article is heavily POV. However, since I don't think we're making any headway on that issue, perhaps we can tackle some of the less-controversial content in this article.

There is far too much trivial information in this article. For example, as I've mentioned several times in the past, the paragraph about Chavez' Twitter account should either be completely deleted, or, at most, reduced to a single sentence listing how many followers he has.

Also, throughout the article, there is far too much trivial descriptions of people, locations, etc. For example: "In the mid 1960s, Hugo, his brother and their grandmother moved to the city of Barinas so that the boys could attend what was then the only high school in the rural state, the Daniel O'Leary High School, named after the Irish revolutionary who had made South America his home." Do we really need to know the name of his high school, let alone the significance of the person who the school was named after? (For the record, much of this added content is very well written, and I appreciate the work that went into it, but it's the type of trivia you expect to find in a person's full biography, not an encyclopedic entry.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs) 00:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Being the individual responsible for the recent added content, I thank you for your kind comments. I can certainly appreciate why you highlight what can seem to be superfluous information inserted in the text. Whilst I agree that it is not entirely necessary, I feel that it does make the article more generally readable, after all is not "In the mid 1960s, Hugo, his brother and their grandmother moved to the city of Barinas so that the boys could attend what was then the only high school in the rural state, the Daniel O'Leary High School, named after the Irish revolutionary who had made South America his home" more readable than simply "He went to high school in Barinas" ? I believe that it also helps to show more of a context from which Chavez came (his high school was named after a revolutionary, possible influence on him methinks). (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Where someone went to high school, their twitter accounts, etc., is important for biographies. TFD (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the twitter accounts, however where a person went to high school is an extremely important part of a biographical article. Secondary schooling can be a very useful indicator in determining a person's social class, amongst other things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by jrtayloriv (talk • contribs)
 * I agree, especially when what he did in his early life compliments or links in with his later life, it makes it notable. Twitter is an odd issue. It seems to have some notability, for me anyway, because from Chavez's own rhetoric it seems to make up part of his political strategy which is notable if only for its uniqueness. ValenShephard (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is too much outdated or no longer relevant info, too much quote farming, and too little use of summary style; an article that has this much to say must rely on summary style and be a broad overview, focusing on the most relevant issues. As of now, it doesn't even discuss most relevant issues, while going into excess detail on older parts of the story that belong in sub-articles. A 6,000 to 7,000-word article that covers all relevant issues might be something to aim for: now we have 11,000 words, without a discussion of current domestic and foreign policy issues. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Lets sort this POV situation out
Hello there everyone. There seems to have been quite a bit of argument as to the POV nature of this article over the last few weeks. One the one hand, Johnywalk85 (03 December 2010) believed that this article was inherently biased AGAINST Chavez, whilst several other editors, such as Lecen, appear to believe that this article is inherently biased IN FAVOUR of Chavez. What a sticky situation. As many of you will likely have noticed, I have recently been updating and *I hope* improving it, with plenty of information brought in from Bart Jones’s biography of Chavez (2007) and Gregory Wilpert’s analysis of the Chavez regime and those who oppose it (2007). I will continue doing so over the next few weeks, as I further study these texts, as well as others, such as Brewer-Carrias’ anti-Chavez polemic (2010). Therefore, with these constant additions and clean up that I am undertaking, please remember that this is a page that will likely be under a state of flux.

So is this page POV ? I myself, do not believe so, but I welcome reasoned argument from those who believe that it is on either side (i.e. those thinking it anti- or pro- Chavez). If there is substance to these arguments, then alterations will have to be made. What I do fear however (and this is based upon what I have already seen on this talk page) is that vehemently anti-Chavez figures will not rest till their criticisms of Chavez play a heavy and dominating part on the article, despite the fact that many other world political figures such as George Bush and Barack Obama (both of whom, on a world rather than US-centric stage, are far, far more controversial than Chavez I might add), do not see the same level of criticism on their pages. The same could be true of Chavez supporters, who could insist on flooding this page with pro-Chavez information and counter-criticisms. So please, reasoned argument only, and use specific examples where you feel there is bias within the text…. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC))


 * Midnight, we tried this numerous times in the past and got nowhere fast. You can certainly go through the archive and find some of the previous discussions, but I will post some of my many, many criticisms of this page.


 * First off, you do realize that many of the books you are relying upon are written by not-so-subtle supporters of Chavez, do you not? Yes, Jones is a reporter, but he's hardly objective. Of course, being pro-Chavez doesn't mean the information provided is inaccurate.  But, just because a work that is "scholarly", doesn't mean it's free of bias.  (And, then there's the reliance by other editors on venezuelanalysis.com, which may as well be written by Chavez.)


 * Some general examples of the bias in this article (and, I find it preposterous that anyone can seriously argue this article is biased AGAINST Chavez): The Crime section. I started the section because there were a plethora of articles pointing out how murders and kidnappings had skyrocketed since Chavez took office.  This was quickly changed to make crime-fighting seem like one of Chavez's big victories.


 * Another example is the Human Rights Watch report. This is a 200 page report entitled "A decade under Chavez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela."  You don't have to read past the title to recognize that this report is slamming Chavez for his human rights record.  Yet, it appears from the Wiki article that the report is a mixed bag of failures and great successes under Chavez.  Yes, it does technically include what is mentioned in the Wiki section, but it's a gross mischaracterization of the article (and, yes, I've read the entire 200-page article.)


 * The part about the closing of the TV station is a complete farce.


 * I previously added a section which included a list of the various conspiracy theories that Chavez has propagated (my favorite being the accusation that the U.S. used the HARRP program to create an earthquake machine, which was tested on Haiti during last year's quake.) This was summarily removed by the pro-Chavez crowd as being "trivia" (as opposed to more substantive issues such as how many people follow him on Twitter...)


 * For the record, these are just a few examples. Ultimately, I gave up trying to fix this article and have said repeatedly that the only thing I am going to do for the time being is ensure that the POV/neutrality tag remains.  This article is far from neutral, and people visiting this page at the very least have to be informed that they are not getting a fair representation.


 * Moreover, not to sound overly cynical, but I don't see how this article will possibly be improved until more editors get involved. I would be happy to be proven wrong on this, but I am highly skeptical of this happening.  There are a very small number of editors working on this page, and most of them have shown (IMO) a substantial bias in favor of Chavez.  I don't mean this as a personal attack -- people are free to believe whatever they wish.  But, unless dramatic changes are made, this article simply fails to meet Wiki guidelines through-and-through.JoelWhy (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing these issues to attention. I am well aware that the two main books I am using are generally pro-Chavez, but I still believe them to be perhaps the best books on Chavez available, as long as one is able to remove the writers' opinion from the facts. As a general supporter of Chavez (I make no secret of this), my personal opinion is inclined to be pro-Chavez, but at the same time I try and commit to being nuetral for the sake of the article. I'd be more than happy in working with you to achieve nuetrality JoelWhy, and I think that from what you say, it is clear that most of the POV problems come from the latter part of the article, that which deals with Chavez's policies, no? Then it is here that we must focus out attentions. Do you see any POV problems with the biography section? (that which I have been primarily focused on recently). (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Neutrality "requires that each article... fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". In order to do that we require academic sources that explain how Chavez is perceived, but no one has presented any.  Also, it says in reliable sources, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources".  TFD (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the books that I have been using to flesh out this article have largely fitted in with this description, no? Before, it relied almost purely on various internet articles.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC))
 * TFD, the problem is these "scholarly works" are written by people with clear biases. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be used, but we are not going to be able to move forward if we pretend these are somehow objective pieces of work.
 * I do not have time right now to go through all your recent change, Midnight. Some of them are fine, but some of them read like a story being told about Chavez the Hero of the poor.  I am fairly certain it reads this way because it is exactly how those books describe his upbringing.JoelWhy (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Facts (e.g., when Chavez was born) are the same in all reliable sources. The benefit of high quality rs is not the opinions that they present but their explanation of how the subject is perceived.  They will say for example, "most analysts believe that Chavez is moving the country towards dictatorship/has lost control of the country/has improved living standards, etc.  That all writers will have their own personal opinions on should not matter.  Good academic sources will explain how the subject is perceived and do so in a neutral tone.  TFD (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also like to add that one of the most significant differences between news periodicals like the Economist and academic sources is that academic sources provide you with citations where you can actually check their facts for yourself. With the Economist, you have to just take their word for everything (which is probably not a good idea, considering their frequent publication of gross misinformation). Everyone is biased, sure, but at least with academic sources, you have an improved (albeit not without its own issues) of checking the factual accuracy of what they are saying. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems that people here are looking for academic sources, and as I wrote somewhere else I have access to these online. I may be able to post links to standalone PDF files, which you guys might be able to access and work from, so we can spread the load. I will be able to find out in a few days if this actually works. If it doesn't, if you need some special access or need to be on a special network, then I guess I will have to do the work myself, with you guys' help. ValenShephard (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:DUE and WP:V; academic sources are not widely available for a contemporary political bio, and mainstream news sources are reliable for this purpose; looking for more journal articles that express the opinions of the few writers who have taken the topic on will not create a balanced article that gives due weight to all mainstream, reliable views as required by Wiki policy, and unless that is done, the article will not advance out of its POV state. Please do find the journal sources if they exist, but that doesn't mean that mainstream reliable sources and viewpoints can be excluded, and particularly not to the extent that we have now, where one author's account (Jones) dominates the article, with some very dubious statements and opinions that all need to be tagged to alert our readers. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 09:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * News sources are good for news, but not so good for analysis. If we cannot find good analysis, then it is better to just have bare facts.  TFD (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Holy Cow
I wish I hadn't peeked. I thought it impossible for this article to get much worse, but it has. The lead is outrageously way too long, and the POV has dramatically increased (and there is a curious unencyclopedic informal tone to the writing, as well). Major portions of Chavez' presidency-- long discussed on this page-- have vanished, and rather blatant one-sided versions have replaced them, including some very curious cherry-picking of quotes, which don't even try to accord to due weight. Well, it looks like business as usual here, bickering on talk, accusations, but no apparent desire to NPOV the article yet. I will continue to check in to see if the tone has changed or if any new editors have shown up and are willing to work towards neutrality and due weight. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And, the article as well as the lead has become burdened by length (11,000 words of prose); it appears that the POV increase is due to the over-reliance on two sources, to the exclusion of other sources. Those issues and sources are well documented in archives here, no need for me to repeat them as they won't be read, but some of the POV introduced here is beyond over the top. I suggest whomever has added so much of Jones and Wilpert might want to read some other sources to neutralize the article; overrelying on one source for a bio of this nature is bound to introduce that author's POV.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am the one who has been making the additions with Jones and Wilpert. Agreed, they are somewhat pro-Chavez sources, but at the same time they contain a lot of useful factual information in them. I welcome other users to introduce information from anti-Chavez sources, but I don't happen to have any of them. Thos that do, please introduce them, to help make this a more nuetral article.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC))
 * I don't think writing a balanced article is about creating a balance between pro and anti sources on the subject. We should just expand to other sources. ValenShephard (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is already much too long (and yet incomplete), doesn't use summary style appropriately, and we don't attain neutral articles by using battling sources, one to overcome the POV of the other. We attain neutrality by using sources correctly to begin with; that hasn't been done here, so adding to it will be unproductive. And if you don't have any sources that present more balanced views, that would help explain why your writing has introduced so much POV.  To write an article correctly involves not only "writing for the enemy", but "reading for the enemy" first, so you know what to write and where and how your sources are biased (see our WP:NPOV page on "writing for the enemy"-- when you add POV text, we don't later fix it by adding more POV text to balance it).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * When you write 5,000 words in an article, drawn from partisan sources, it's not likely fixable, and having a battle of competing POVs and sources is not how we write articles (please read WP:NPOV and WP:V). Suggestion:  when you know your sources are partisan (and you acknowledged that on this talk page), consider whether your additions are neutral and balanced, and go read other sources to determine if you're giving undue weight to one view.  If you write from sources that present all views (like The New York Times, the BBC, and others), then include all sides of the story when adding text, and avoid cherrypicking parts of the article that support only one POV. If you aren't familiar with all mainstream POVs, and willing to read all sides, consider not editing the article at all, and only entering commentary on talk. Many months of unnecessary work and has gone into creating a poorly written and even more POV article here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Back on POV
The POV here has taken on an alarmingly unapologetic and blatant tone, and is everywhere I look; listing it all would be a major undertaking. Listing the factual issues due to overreliance on one source would be huge, so for starters, let's just look at how we treat and discuss the various sources (and the article seriously overrelies on one source, Jones, we don't use Wiki to tell one person's version of a controversial story, we give due weight to all mainstream reliable sources):

For one source, we quote something not entirely useful to this already-too-long article, adding to its length, in glowing terms: We don't qualify this "biographer" in any way (positive or negative), and why do we need that quote in an overly article, btw? Yet for another source, we qualify the writer in POV terms (where on Wiki do we disqualify our sources like that, including the word to avoid claim? Either a source is reliable or it's not): It looks like any version of the history other than Jones-Wilpert gets a qualifier, and Word to avoid, claim. This is but one of many samples of POV at its finest; similar is found throughout the article at an alarming level, and gives us an idea of the writer's bias (in a neutral article, you shouldn't be able to tell-- clearly, POV is in play here). But an even bigger problem is content that has been blatantly omitted, to tell one side of the story (by weight of sources, the Jones, Wilpert version), to the exclusion of a multitude of other reliable sources that have been omitted. We've discussed all of this many times, and it's documented in archives; that new editors come along doesn't mean that it all hs to be documented again, when nothing has changed-- mainstream reliable sources are not represented, and we now have a worse version of one side of the issues being included. And that's not accounting for the POV introduced by how outdated the article is; a good portion of what is here now is nothing but an expansion of a few points of view from a selective few writers, undue weight to a few sources, adding to the length of the article, while failing to update it and accord due weight to all sources. The article makes no pretense of telling an accurate, up-to-date, neutral, balanced story-- the one you can read on a multitude of other sources. It's a full-on fluff piece now (it was bad before, but not this bad). One only needs to look at the top 10 contributors to the article, by time, to see that I gave up in 2006 (other than MOS cleanup, etc), and see the nine editors who have contributed most since. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 07:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As Chávez's biographer, Brian Jones, noted, "Chávez's appearence was a bombshell. The gallant young officer in the dashing red beret instantaneously captivated millions of people who had never heard of him and were wondering who'd led the stunning rebellion.
 * Venezuelan lawyer and academic Allan R. Brewer-Carías, a professed opponent of Chávez, has made the claim that under his regime the country has "suffered a tragic setback regarding democratic standards, suffering a continuous, persistent and deliberate process of demolishing institutions and destroying democracy, which has never before been experienced in the constitutional history of the country."[160]
 * As I mentioned earlier, we need academic sources to explain how Chavez is generally perceived and no one has been able to find any. TFD (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned before, WP:NPOV tells us to give due weight to all mainstream reliable sources; we can't cherry pick journal articles, which aren't the preferred source for a contemporary bio anyway, to present only one POV. We don't expect academic sources-- except those likely to have a bias-- to cover current events.  And we don't exclude other mainstream reliable sources to tell the story as one journal author sees it; we balance sources, according to due weight.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * V
 * WP:UNDUE
 * RS (clearly, this is a contemporary topic, a BLP, and not an academic topic-- mainstream news sources are reliable, and books and journal articles are likely to either have a bias or be outdated ... in this article, we are promoting a few authors' bias as fact, unbalanced by a multitude of other sources). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 08:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Length
The article is so long now (at 11,000 words, without expansion of sections that are critical) that it is hard to load and edit. I'm switching the tag I just installed on the article, since it doesn't help our readers to know that the article needs copyediting, length reduced, and lead reduced; our readers need to know that the article is out of date and POV. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 09:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Bart Jones reviews
Please revert this article and rewrite it neutrally without an overreliance on one partisan source: I could go on; we should not be overrelying here on such a shoddy, partisan source. His account is partisan at best, inaccurate at worst, and needs balancing with other sources; overrelying on this one book has made this article even more POV, and yet he gets quoted with no "disclaimers" or words to avoid, as are attached to other authors. Attempting to balance this article with "Jones says x" but "y says z" will only make the article worse; reverting it and rewriting it neutrally from a variety of sources will be more effective. At a minimum, I suggest reverting to this version (December 3, 5,000 words, apparently the article size doubled when Jones was added, and much of that content belongs in daughter articles even if it were sourced to more neutral sources) before Jones was introduced, and before Saravask's well written work was obliterated, then use Jones only for any parts that may be warranted based on reviews of his work (if there are any that belong in this article)-- a further revert may be helpful, I haven't looked that far back yet. It is troubling that so many editors watched the prose and POV worsen here and did nothing for over a month, while a partisan source was introduced. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/161hugo-the-hugo-chavez-story-by-bart-jones-841036.html
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/bart-jones A reporter for Newsday? Great ...
 * http://www.mclemee.com/id203.html Clear bias
 * http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2586 more clear bias
 * http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0604/p09s01-coop.html more, indicating his clear editorial stance
 * http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=22722 More, his editorial stance is clear, and he is a Chavez advocate
 * http://www.mitfamericas.org/Hugo.htm But organizes of the Venezuela Solidarity Network endorse his work, not surprising
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/30/AR2007083001583_2.html Pretty clear.
 * http://weeksnotice.blogspot.com/2007/11/bart-jones-hugo-hugo-chvez-story-from.html Another, consensus seems clear, nice thriller, but not the quality of book we should be using to write this entire article.


 * I have no objections to that. Notice that Hugo was written by a journalist and published by Random House.  I have not conducted my own investigation to see how reliable it is, but if we stick to academic sources we will not have the same neutrality issues.  I do not see how we could determine that this book is any more or less accurate than the opinions of other journalists or other writings in the popular media.  TFD (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The current problem is that we apply one standard to Jones, and a different standard to other sources that are argued here as being "partisan"-- we need to apply the same standard to all, and use sources appropriately, without undue expansion of the text that overrelies on one source. That would include a discussion of sources, without a double standard.  It appears, for example, that the Brewer-Carias book is so new that there are few reviews (at least, I can't find them). At least it was published by a serious and respected academic press, his bias notwithstanding, so I'd expect reviews to be more favorable, but can't find any.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A cursory examination of all of the approximately 5,000 words of text added since Dec 3 reveals that virtually all of it was sourced to Jones (some to Wilpert and Venezuelanalysis, all sources that share the same bias, with no attempt to balance the text with a broader use of sources); this is an inappropriate use of a partisan source that introduced POV, expanded the text unnecessarily while ignoring summary style, and obliterated some of Saravask's well written work that did rely on a more appropriate use of summary style. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We should apply the same standard and if we keep it high, we could avoid neutrality disputes. Because Brewer-Carias' writing is recent, it may be some time before we know what acceptance his opinions receive.  TFD (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that whilst we should certainly include information from the liked of Brewer-Carias, we should not do so by deleting everything by Jones and Wilpert that I have spent many hours into adding in order to improve what was a poorly empty and unreferenced page. So, for this reason, please do not just revert, I am more than happy to work with you on improving the article, but this cannot be achieved by simply reverting the page to what was undoubtedly a worse edit.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Yes, I agree. The work you did was good. I was away from the article for like 3 months and came back to see a great deal of well written detail added. I don't think reverts and deletes would help. It is a bit wordy in places, but we can fix this. ValenShephard (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is not in a state that can be improved, it is too long while not even covering the basics, and it is phenomenally POV. That you spent many hours trying to improve it, well, I suggest the editors who watched this "improvement" and did nothing to ask you to write neutrally, broaden your sources, or address the serious prose deficiencies should answer why that was allowed to happen. I wasn't here, and JoelWhy and Lecen tried; it is those who didn't speak up that should answer why you were allowed to misspend your time here. And no, we don't just randomly include other sources like Brewer-Carias to balance your POV; we start by evaluating sources before we use them, and then using sources correctly. Jones is not an adequate source for the amount of text that now relies on him, most of which belongs in daughter articles, even if better sourced and better written.  (But please don't go do the same thing to the sub-article at Military career of Hugo Chavez, which is a featured article and will end up at WP:FAR if it sees the kind of deterioration this article has seen.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly I would disagree with your claim that the article has deteriorated with my additions. If you can call the messy, mostly unreferenced, unformatted state of affairs that I set out to improve better then, well, I just can't agree. I have brought a level of order and detail to the work - yes, using mostly pro-Chavez sources BUT I believe myself to be justified in using these. There simply are no unbiased sources, and to use the most prominent biography of Chavez (i.e. Jones) is, I feel, justified. Agreed, the work might be too long. I'm willing to work on that. Agreed, there might be some POV in my use of language, and once again I am willing to work on that. By mass deleting my hard work (which is, effectively, what a revert is) however, simply to replace it with what went before would be downright annoying to those users who have worked hard on it.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC))


 * Please address your annoyance at those who allowed it to happen, as well as the serious issues I have documented above; the article is not fixable as it stands, and the previous version affords a better starting place (and was not unsourced as you claim). If you want to salvage some of your text, you can put it in a sandbox and massage it there, and later propose it for addition to sub-articles. Trying to salvage POV text isn't worth the effort; using sources correctly to begin with would have avoided this problem. If you would like, I will put your text in a sandbox for you, and we can see what you're able to do with it, but it shouldn't be in this article until it is balanced, better sourced, and copy-edited. And finally, it is simply incorrect to say there are no unbiased sources; perhaps you just haven't read them. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, please put it in the sandbox. Rather than debating this for days and days on end, with many people chipping in, let's just get started on improving this article.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Will do now. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being so cordial in this conversation. It can be so easy for some users to become right b**tards on discussion pages, doing nothing but ranting and hurling personal attacks. Shall we archive this user page so that we can start afresh with working together on this new article? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC))


 * Here you go: User:Midnightblueowl/ChavezSandbox.  I've left off the interwikis, cats, etc at the bottom of the article, as that will cause your userpage to be incorrectly added to cats, etc.  Please be aware that if text is moved from sandbox back to an article after being changed, it has to done correctly per attribution purposes of Wiki licensing (I don't know the link to that page offhand, but please ask for assistance if you intend to move text back and don't know how).  And thank you, too-- the tone on this talk page has long been unconducive to collaborative work, and in case anyone finds my tone harsh, it's because I'm used to working at WP:FAC, where editors submit their work, knowing it will be subjected to harsh criticism and intense scrutiny. No, I don't think we should archive this page, because it documents the many outstanding issues.  I still suggest we revert for now, subject to the idea that you can bring text back from sandbox as it is massaged and discussed, and consensus is gained about sourcing, undue weight, whether to put text in sub- or main articles, etc. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I'd personally like to alter the page as it is, I recognize that I'm biased because of the work and effort I've already put in, so I'll agree that it's probably best if you revert the page, and then we start working through the article, area by area. Thanks. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC))
 * That's a most collegial approach! But I'll wait for further feedback.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't support reverting the page. Supporting the revert would mean supporting the idea that the article has gotten worse or is a mess, and I simply don't agree. There are a few simple examples of POV wording like the word "oligarchy" (it is legitmately used in sources not the prejudice of the editors) and this can easily be fixed. I simply do not see fundamental issues and a piece of trash, I won't accept that. ValenShephard (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, don't throw out the baby with the bath water, I also think that reverting is a bad idea, I think it's better to fix present version and move some material to daughter articles. JRSP (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is quite saddening to see Midnightblueowl appear to become dissolusioned with his own edits, that is unfortunate. His edits need a little copy editing; a few uses of POV language (because it is present in the sources) have crept in but this is minor and was unfortunately missed by others. His additions are both useful, well sourced and generally very well written (yes there are a few wordy bits) no need to trash his good work, and the article is definitely not a POV mess. It could do with expansion in certain areas however, but this has been overshadowed by exactly these disputes. ValenShephard (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * @JRSP, there is no baby here, only bathwater. The portions of the article most edited were in good shape before, now they're poorly written, POV and too long.  @Valen, it seems to me that Midnight is handling it just fine.  Please don't persist with the claim that the new text is either well written or well-sourced in the face of the evidence above.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call anyone's opinion evidence. My opinion is that the article has overall improved, with a few small issues introduced (which I mentioned) which can be fixed. ValenShephard (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia, although I am willing to accept a revert and work from there, I would certainly prefer it if the page stays as it is (rather than suffering a revert to what I believe was most clearly an inferior page, lacking references for certain areas, being visually a mess and what not), and that we work on improving it from here. Either way, I will work with whatever the concensus is.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC))

I would just like to point out that I have begun editing down the article as it currently stands, in accordance with some of the criticisms that it is excessively wordy. I would ask that those who wish to revert the page at least give me and others time to improve this article as it stands.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Looks pretty good so far but I would reinsert the statements about him reading Marx etc in his youth and the statement about the Allende government. The first especially seems important to understand Chavez. ValenShephard (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there's still information on him reading Marx, Lenin etc whilst stationed in Barinas, when he actually began to convert to the leftist cause, so I think the deletion was acceptable in this particular case.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Alrighty, keep up the good work and keep an eye here for any thoughts we have on your cuts. ValenShephard (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Checking in, I see no progress here on the issues I raised. The article is still too long, still doesn't cover issues according to due weight, still overrelies on one partisan source, and there are still serious prose issues such as I pointed out earlier. I haven't followed individual edits, but I see no attempt to correct the serious issues reflected in the actual content of the article. Specifically, the Early life and Military career sections have significantly deteriorated from the version written by Saravask long ago, and now contain not only overreliance on a partisan source, but an expansion of content not appropriate for an overview article, significant prose deterioration, and a proliferation of MOS errors not in earlier versions. Those sections were one part of this article that was in good shape before recent editing. I continue to suggest restoring earlier versions of those sections, and working in the sub-articles, but I hope those articles won't be damaged as well, since at least one of them is a Featured article. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia, I ask that you give us more time on this issue. I have obtained a copy of Christina Marcano and Alberto Barrera Tyszka's Hugo Chavez: The Definitive Biography, the less detailed, but also more neutral biography of Chavez, and plan to use this work to add to the sections which are so-far dominated by references from Bart Jones. As far as I am aware, these are the ONLY two English language biographies of Chavez, and it is therefore only fair that we use them in this article, rather than relying on a few internet articles from the media (which, it could certainly be argued, were just as non-partisan in one way or another as Jones's).
 * I also strongly contest, as seemingly do several other editors here, that the biographical sections on Chavez were in some way better before I began my additions: I would firmly argue that they were far too short and uninformative (the Wikipedia pages on other important political figures have greater information on earlier parts of their figures' lives). I'd also like to note that I have kept many of the references that were already existing then rather than deleting them.
 * I also contest, once again seemingly as others do, that the quality of prose has deteriorated. Fair enough, it might need some tweaking here and there, but I'd request that you help with this, rather than simply reverting this article to a state where the page was simply insufficient. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC))
 * I generally agree with Midnight. My college library, one of the most well stocked in the country, only features the two biographies which Midnight has mentioned. According to my tutor, they are both widely read and respected, especially the one by Bart Jones, which she called the most significant analysis of Chavez the individual currently available. Apart from that, the prose has improved and to say it hasn't simply isn't supported by looking at the material or other editors. Reverting is counter productive as in most cases, unless the article has been totally rubbished (which hasn't happened here). The article is a little too long, and this can be remedied by cutting down the sections which are much more appropriate elsewhere. ValenShephard (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Crime section
"I spent a substantial amount of time researching and constructing the crime section" User:JoelWhy why are you doing that on an article about a democratically elected president?


 * 1) Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, sports-related, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.[1]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.85.62 (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

put that info in the article about venezuelan crime statistics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.85.62 (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I must agree that I am unsure why a crime section is required in this page, after all, the British tabloid press made a huge deal over crime rates and "anti-social behaviour" under the Tony Blair regime but that doesn't mean that there is a section on crime in the UK there. It's simply not directly related to the president or his policies themselves.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC))


 * I can't tell who wrote what above, or decipher the meaning or the grammar, but as long as a multitude of reliable sources do associate rampant crime and corruption with Chavez, our article should as well. To leave it out violates undue; Midnight, there are plenty of sources that explain the relevance-- rampant crime and corruption are central issues to Chavez's governance.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe crime is an issue to the Chavez presidency, or Venezuela generally (long standing problems that fluctuate) not Chavez himself as an individual. It is difficult and dubious to associate such a wideranging and long term social issue with a single leader, I've never seen it done before. ValenShephard (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources say that crime was a continuing problem in Venezuela and Chavez was initially unable to address it, because law enforcement came under local control. But centralization of policing has reduced the problem.  TFD (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This should be mentioned more briefly in the sections on the Chavez presidency at best, not its own section. It would also be useful to get more historical perspective, it is too easy to appear to simply be laying the blame at Chavez himself for the high/increasing crime levels in some areas. ValenShephard (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In my personal opinion (and I am confident that somewhere there will be published sources that back me up here), right-wing and/or centrist reactionary media tend to trump up accusations of rising crime levels whenever left wing or “progressive” regimes to get into any sort of political control. The fact that the opposition to Chavez makes a big deal out of crime rates under him makes me very suspicious that this is true in this case as well. As such I suggest we be very cautious in our choice of sources for this section, although I still do not fully understand the need for it at all. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC))
 * You are probably correct in your analysis but that is not the most important thing, what is crucial is not to over play the issue of crime which is an issue of a whole nation (since before Chavez was born) and has fluctuated across a range of regimes of multiple ideologies throughout the modern history of Venezuela. It is very odd to have a crime section in the biography of an individual leader (we could also expand this analysis to the human rights section too, which is also better suited elsewhere). It can be mentioned briefly in his presidency section here, but it more suited in a sister article like Venezuela itself. What do we think? ValenShephard (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The stats are fine and sources have been found to explain them. Polemical writing however blames the crime rate on Chavez, yet never explains what supposed Chavez policy led to the increases.  No one has found a serious paper that explains this relationship.  TFD (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There have been dozens of reports regarding the sky rocketting crime rates in Venezuela since Chavez took office. Dismissing this as 'right wing propaganda' really encapsulates the POV issues with this article -- everything that reflects poorly on Chavez's presidency is part of some corporate oligarchy agenda.  If you have evidence to support your claim that these are trumped up charges, please present said evidence.  Otherwise, the issue should be properly addressed in this article.JoelWhy (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As TFD said, if there is no reliable source to pin the blame on policies invented by Chavez himself (let alone his government) then how can we include it here in its current form? ValenShephard (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The crime section never stated "Chavez is to blame for the increase in crime." It presented objective facts (and still manages to keep a few, despite being thoroughly gutted to fall more in line with the pro-Chavez talking points.)   But, thank you for reminding me why I stopped trying to fix this article and have remained content with simply maintaining the POV tag.JoelWhy (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The text reads, "During Chávez' administration, homicide rates have more than doubled, with one NGO finding the rate to have nearly quadrupled; the number of homicides increased from 6,000 in 1999 to 13,000 in 2007. Kidnappings have also become increasingly common. Caracas in 2010 had the world's highest murder rate." TFD (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is all entirely correct.JoelWhy (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That sentence which TFD quoted is probably all that is needed in the article, with maybe a few words to explain that it is a deep rooted Venezuelan (or even South American) problem. It is very odd to pin crime (or even human rights) issues to the leader of a country. There are thousand of others involved carrying out these abuses, who might have no connection to Chavez, his party or the leadership. ValenShephard (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There's an article on Hugo Chávez, the individual, and on Hugo Chávez' administration. By definition, any topic that is related with his administration as a whole but not specifically with the individual should be dealt with at the second article. In that article, there would be little discussion on whenever the section should be included, security is one of the core topics about an administration that should be mentioned, even if there were no great changes from one administration to the other. MBelgrano (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree there. I still think these issues should be briefly mentioned here (crime, human rights, foreign affairs) but would indeed be more suited to the administration article in present (or greater) detail. ValenShephard (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

We may compare this article with another one that gets the attention from more editors: Barack Obama and Presidency of Barack Obama. As you can see, the later includes many sections and information that are left outside from the former, gun control and cybersecurity among them MBelgrano (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is true. This is the only article I have come across where these domestic issues have been given prominence here (and as such implying it is the work of the individual). Some else mentioned Tony Blair further above, where crime (which was/is a huge issue in the UK) is not attributed in his article, and I suspect it would be removed if it was. I think we should get on this task soon. Maybe copy paste the current crime, human rights, media and foreign affairs sections into the presidency of Chavez article, and keep a brief, informative summary here in the presidency sections. There have been many mentions of the article being too long, so here is also a solution to this pretty agreed upon issue. What do we think? ValenShephard (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Crime and human rights have been major issues for Chavez and his administration. If the homicide rate had quadrupled under Obama, you would see a Crime section in Obama's article.  I am really growing tired of having this conversation over and over again.JoelWhy (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You said it yourself, his presidency is where it is needed. To give you an example, unemployment (one of the biggest issues of the US political sphere, as crime is in Ven.) is given a couple of sentences, noting that it increased past 10%. This is all this information deserves in the article of an individual. It is taken for granted that a leader is not wholly responsible for domestic (economic or crime issues included) issues, especially when no sources point towards that, as in this case. Some media refering to "crime increasing under Chavez" is not a strong enough link to Chavez as an individual, even if some would like that. Information of such detail on crime, foreign affairs, etc. deserve to be in the neglected sister articles of Chavez and Venezuela, where they logically fit; with a concise summary here (as in the Obama article). And I could be wrong, but you appeared to be supporting a cutting down of the length of this article. ValenShephard (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the crime discussion belongs in the presidency article. But we are going to summarize that article here. Crime will probably warrant a sentence or so in that summary. All of the major topics in the presidency article (human rights, economy, etc.) will need to be included in this article, only more briefly (because we are also going to be covering Chavez' early life, military career, etc. here). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Re, one sentence, wrong. Due weight to reliable sources.  Crime, corruption, consolidation of power, undermining of democratic processes, economic detioration-- all are major issues directly attributable to Chavez and his administration, and until due weight is given to reliable sources here, the article will remain POV.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We do in fact have a crime section and it does in fact say that the homicide rate doubled under Chavez. TFD (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Jrtayloriv, this is exactly what I meant. A summary of these sections in this article, and their full detail in the more appropriate sister articles. ValenShephard (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So, can someone get on this task, as I am very busy for the next month at least? :) ValenShephard (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Overthrow through elections
The last sentence in the lead section states: "His opponents have attempted to overthrow him on various occasions, both through elections and through military coups, each time unsuccessfully".

How can one be overthrown through elections? Isn't the election the legal way of changing government? For example was George Bush overthrown by Barack Obama in 2008 elections?

And as a side-note: the article suffers from some serio-us POV issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.104.3.11 (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Various people have commented on this article having a bias, both pro and anti-Chavez. It is something that editors are addressing, slowly but (I hope) surely. As for the specific usage of the term "overthrow", I think that you're right on this point. "Remove from power" might be a better term to use.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC))
 * "Remove from power" would then sound like downplaying/legitimizing the coup. Split the phrase, they dont belong lumped together since its apples and oranges. A coup attempt and and opposiing via elections shouldn't be in the same breath. -86.157.81.232 (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I was a poor election of words ("overthrow" imply the use of force), but the idea is correct. The lead is a summary, and it states that his opponents want to remove him, both by legal and illegal ways. The ways are different, but the goal is the same, they are not "apples and oranges". Simply add a little more clarification on the difference between both things. MBelgrano (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The use of the word "overthrow" in conjunction with "elections" is completely within accepted usage. The first dictionary definition is: "to depose, as from a position of power; overcome, defeat, or vanquish:". There is no mention of use of force being a requirement in order for an overthrow to take place. 208.180.38.9 (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.38.9 (talk)

Other bios and ongoing POV
I see no improvement in the POV here, but an unrelated discussion about bio sources elsewhere prompted me to go searching for examples. Hopefully editors working here will read and note the substantial differences between these bios and the Wikipedia article. I am not suggesting they necessarily be used as sources, in fact some of them would not be reliable sources-- just noting that they don't attempt to whitewash, and manage to stay focused on important issues with a manageable length, while mentioning the "good" and the "bad" (the latter being eliminated from Wikipedia):
 * http://www.notablebiographies.com/news/Ca-Ge/Ch-vez-Hugo.html
 * http://www.biography.com/articles/Hugo-Ch%C3%A1vez-193225
 * http://www.lcsc.edu/elmartin/historybehindthenews/mccoy/bio.html
 * http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/presidentsofsouthamerica/p/09HChavez.htm

Regardless of reliability of these sources, they provide indicators to easily sourced information missing in this article, and ideas of ways to introduce balance and brevity to this article. Some of the commentary here about the Marcano book relative to Jones is interesting, although not reliable. Foreign Affairs also reviewed the Marcano book here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * More missing information-- easily accessible via a multitide of sources-- here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the links Sandy, they should be of some help in the work I and others are doing on this page. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC))


 * The biographical articles are all tertiary sources, but provide an example of how the article could be written. The International Crisis Group article could be a good source for analysis in the article.  TFD (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The use of the word "overthrow" in conjunction with "elections" is completely within accepted usage. The first dictionary definition is: "to depose, as from a position of power; overcome, defeat, or vanquish:".  There is no mention of use of force being a requirement in order for an overthrow to take place. 208.180.38.9 (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of "Policy" section
So far, a large section of this article deals not with biographical information about Chávez (which this article should by its very nature be primarily concerned with) and instead deals with policies instituted under his governance. This latter information, which is contained within the lengthy "Policy" section (with its sub-sections dealing with the economy, human rights, media, crime rates and foreign policy) should all properly belong to the page at Presidency of Hugo Chávez, which is designed to deal more with his and his government's rule. I propose that these sections be moved to that page, where they would be better suited. That is not to say that elements of them should not be included in the biographical sections about Hugo's presidential life (because of course they should), but as whole sections in themselves, I really feel that they do not have a place here. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC))
 * Disagree, not only are his policies relevant to his bio, in his case even more so than for other leaders that info is relevant because of the consolidation of power in the Executive and weakening of other democratic institutions and the judiciary. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply that his goivernment's policies were not relevant to his biography, but that these can perhaps be dealt with better in the above biographical sections about his life as president. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC))
 * I don't understand your argument, Sandy. First of all "consolidation of power in the Executive and weakening of other democratic institutions" is an opinion advanced by some sources but we cannot say there is a consensus about that. Further, even if this were true, the point is that this article should be more about Chávez the individual, there is a lot of details that could be moved to the Presidency article. JRSP (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this article doesn't need to go into extensive details, but you can't separate the man from his policies. So, for example, the foreign policy section shouldn't go into as much detail as a separate page devoted to his foreign policy, but this article should still provide a summary.JoelWhy (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)